CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

3. EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES

This chapter of the Housing Element analyzes population and housing characteristics, identifies special housing needs among certain population groups, evaluates housing conditions, and provides other important information to support the goals, policies, and programs to meet the needs of current and future Oakland residents.

This chapter of the Housing Element has been revised according to California Housing and Community Development Department’s Housing Element Streamlined Update Guidance. The guidance for this update specifies a ”Requisite Analysis for changes to only certain housing needs, thus not all language, tables and figures have been changed from the prior published Housing Element. The primary source of data for the updated analysis is derived from the 2010 Census. Exceptions to this are noted in the text or table references.7

Chapter 3 is divided into 11 sections, as follows:

A. Population and Household Characteristics – provides general information on population and household characteristics, such as ethnicity, age, household composition, income, and household size.

B. Housing Characteristics – describes general housing characteristics such as the number of housing units by type, tenure, and vacancy.

C. Age and Condition of Housing Stock – describes the age and condition of the City’s housing stock and provides an estimate of the number and percentage of dwelling units in need of rehabilitation.

D. Housing Cost – compares rental housing costs and housing prices in Oakland with surrounding communities and analyzes the affordability of housing in Oakland in relation to local incomes.

E. Foreclosures – summarizes the impacts on City of Oakland residents as a result of the housing market bubble and resulting economic crisis.

7 The current American Community Survey (ACS) Census product is only used in some tables as required by California state Department of Housing and Community Development. The 2010 Census and the American Community Survey (ACS) continue to be evaluated by City of Oakland staff. Comparing these data to other sources used by the City (e.g.: 2000 Census, California State Department of Finance, and USPS 90-day Vacancy data), there is clear evidence that there are problems with the ACS sampling. Specifically, the ACS data in question is an under count of the population and over count of the vacancy rate. City staff are considering an appeal to the US Census bureau for a re-evaluation of these figures. Specifically, there are discrepancies with the 2010 Census showing a population decrease of 8,842 from 2000 Census population count yet an increase of 12,202 housing units. The population decrease could be explained partially by those Oakland households who lost their homes due to foreclosure though all foreclosed homes between 2006-2009 would have needed to be vacant simultaneously with the Census count to explain the magnitude of population loss reported. (See section on Foreclosures for detail on ownership units lost during the height of the crisis.) The housing unit increase is supported by building completions data as reported to the State of California Department of Finance during the same time period. Additionally, according to the 2010 Census the vacancy rate more than doubled to 9.38% over what was reported in the 2000 Census. This could explain the discrepancy between the population and housing unit count differences but again it is not supported by other similar data. The USPS 90-day Vacancy Data shows a vacancy rate of 2% reported March 31, 2010 -- much lower than the 2010 Census. It is conceivable but unlikely that the Census 2010 vacancy rate is attributable to the foreclosure crisis. If that were the case, again, all homeownership units lost due to foreclosure from 2006-2009 would need to have been vacant at the time the 2010 Census was taken in addition to other types of vacancies (e.g. 2000 Census vacancy rate) in order to reach the magnitude of the vacancy rate reported in 2010.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 101 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

F. Households Overpaying for Housing – describes the number and percentage of households paying more than 30 and 50 percent of their incomes for housing by household type and income level.

G. Overcrowding – analyzes the number and percentage of households by tenure with more than one person per room.

H. Special Housing Needs – describes the characteristics and housing needs of particular sub-groups of the City’s population (seniors, large families, female-headed households, farm workers, persons with disabilities, and persons in need of emergency shelter) identified in state law as groups with special housing needs.

I. Assisted Rental Housing – describes the characteristics of publicly assisted private rental housing and public housing in Oakland.

J. Analysis of Assisted, At-Risk Housing Projects – identifies privately owned, subsidized rental housing developments that may be at risk of converting to market rate rental housing, creating a loss of affordable rental housing in Oakland.

K. Population and Employment Trends – summarizes population and employment trends in Oakland as they relate to future housing needs and demand.

A. POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS Population

The City of Oakland had a population of 390,724 in 2010 and was, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the eighth largest city in California. The City was home to 153,791 households. Approximately 8,138 Oakland residents lived in group quarters such as college dormitories, nursing homes, correctional facilities, and other shelter facilities not constituting individual dwelling units.

The last three decades have brought significant changes to Oakland. Before 1980, Oakland had experienced three decades of population decline due to changes in the local economy, migration to suburban communities, and other factors. Since 1990, Oakland has experienced growing interest as a place to live and work. In recent decades the San Francisco Bay Area has been the focal point of significant economic development and investment in the technology sector. In the early 2000s this resulted in significant constraints on housing in areas located near Silicon Valley (San Mateo County and San Francisco City and County). The bursting of the housing bubble and resulting foreclosure crisis and economic slowdown after 2008 saw a decline in housing demand and costs both in rental and ownership units in Oakland. Resurgence in the technology sector in recent years has resulted in another period of high housing demand that has spilled over to other regional cities including Oakland. One indicator of the regional nature of housing demand is the “Google Bus” phenomenon. Information technology companies provide free luxury coach bus shuttles from area cities to their corporate campuses in Silicon Valley. Those busses now have pick-up locations at four Oakland locations (including three BART stations). Murmurs of the regional impact of housing demand on the City of Oakland are starting to become visible in the demand and costs of rental and ownership housing in the City. See the section on Housing Cost, Housing Prices for Owner-Occupied Housing for detail on region median home sales prices as an illustration of how significantly less expensive East Bay housing prices are and how that might be influencing regional housing choice and the increase in demand for housing in Oakland.

102 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

The housing policy implications of Oakland’s historic and projected population growth are discussed in subsequent sections of this chapter.

Ethnicity

Since at least the 1940s, Oakland has had a significantly higher percentage of non-White and Hispanic residents than other cities of similar size. However, the most significant change in Oakland’s population since 2000 has been a decrease in the number and the proportion of residents who identified themselves as non-Hispanic Black/African-American. The City’s non-Hispanic Black/African American population declined by 23.9 percent between 2000 and 2010. In comparison, the population who identified themselves as non-Hispanic White increased, as did the non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic/Latino populations. The non-Hispanic White population increased by 7.8 percent, non-Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander population increased by 7.8 percent, and the Hispanic/Latino population increased by 13.3 percent. Despite these significant demographic changes, Oakland’s population continues to be very diverse as evidenced by the 2010 census: 25.9 percent non-Hispanic White, 27.3 percent non-Hispanic Black/African American, 16.7 percent non-Hispanic Asian, and 25.4 percent Hispanic. This change in the composition of the City’s population may have implications for future housing needs (as discussed below in the section on household characteristics), because the family composition, living preferences and patterns, and economic decisions of these new arrivals to Oakland may be different than those of previous residents of the City.

The decline in the non-Hispanic Black/African American population since 1990 may have three causes: some Black/African American families may have moved to suburban locations by choice to purchase less costly homes, while others may have moved from Oakland due to rapidly rising housing costs during recent decades. A third reason might be attributable to the foreclosure crisis with its epicenter in Oakland neighborhoods that have historically been the location of a large proportion of the City’s Black/African American population.

Oakland’s population mix over the past 50 years has been influenced by economic and suburban development trends. The loss of many relatively well-paying “blue collar” and military jobs, combined with rapid suburbanization in the Bay Area between 1950 and 1980, left Oakland with a higher percentage of lower-income and minority residents. Since the 1980s, increasing numbers of immigrants from Asia, the Pacific Islands, and Latin American/Hispanic countries have found homes in Oakland. According to the 2000 Census, nearly 12 percent of Oakland residents were foreign born and came to the United States between 1990 and 2000. Nearly 90 percent of these new residents came from either Asia or Latin America.

Table 3-1 compares population changes in Oakland, Alameda County, and the State of California in 1990, 2000 and 2010 and compares the composition of Oakland’s population with the countywide and statewide populations.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 103 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-1 Population by Race, City, County, and State (1990, 2000 and 2010)

Race/ Oakland Oakland Oakland Alameda County State Ethnicity 1990 2000 2010 Race Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 Non-Hispanic/Latino White (Not Hispanic/ 105,927 28% 93,953 24% 101,308 26% 53% 41% 34% 57% 46% 40% Latino) Black or African 160,640 43% 140,139 35% 106,637 27% 17% 15% 12% 7% 6% 6% American Native 1,695 <1% 1,471 <1% 1,214 <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% 1% <1% American Asian/Pacific 53,818 14% 62,259 16% 67,208 17% 14% 21% 27% 9% 11% 13% Islander Other Race 895 <1% 1,229 <1% 1,213 <1% 7% <1% <1% <1% <1% <1% Two or More N/A N/A 12,966 3% 14,076 4% N/A 4% 4% N/A 3% 3% Races1 Hispanic/Latino (any race) Hispanic or 38% 49,267 14% 87,467 22% 99,068 25% 14% 19% 23% 26% 32% Latino Total 372,242 100% 399,484 100% 390,724 100% ------Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000 and 2010. 1This is a 2000 Census category only. Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

104 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Geographic Concentrations of Race and Ethnicity

Despite a great deal of diversity at the City level, neighborhoods are still segregated by race and ethnicity. While Whites constitute 35 percent of the population and Black, Asians and Hispanics each constitute less than 30 percent, there are numerous areas of the City where more than 50% of the residents belong to a single racial/ethnic group. In addition, each racial/ethnic group has distinct patterns of concentration where the percentage in a neighborhood is either 1.5 times the citywide average, or less than half the citywide average, as illustrated on the following pages.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 105 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Figure 3-1 Areas of Racial/Ethnic Majorities

106 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Figure 3-2 Areas of High and Low Concentration of Black Population

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 107 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Figure 3-3 Areas of High and Low Concentration of White Population

108 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Figure 3-4 Areas of High and Low Concentration of Hispanic Population

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 109 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Figure 3-5 Areas of High and Low Concentration of Asian Population

110 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES

CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Age Distribution

Although Oakland experienced a significant change in the racial and ethnic mix of its population between 2000 and 2010, there were only small changes in the age distribution. There was a 4 percent decrease in the percentage of children between the ages of 5 to 19 years, leading to a 3 year increase in the median age from 33 years in 2000 to 36 years in 2010. Additionally, Oakland experienced an increase in the percent of the population in their mid-50s to mid-60s. Even with the slight change in the proportion of some age groups, the age groups from 5 years to 54 years of age experienced decreases in population between 2000 and 2010.

If the population changes over the past decade continue during the next 10 to 20 years, the City may be home to a significantly large number of older adults and retirees who are looking for housing suited to their changing lifestyles and physical needs. Table 3-2 compares the age composition of Oakland’s population in 1990, 2000 and 2010 with that of Alameda County and the State of California.

Table 3-2 Age Distribution (1990, 2000 and 2010)

Alameda Alameda Oakland Oakland Oakland County County California California Age 1990 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 Under 5 years 8% 7% 7% 7% 6% 7% 7% 5 to 19 years 20% 21% 17% 21% 19% 23% 21% 20 to 34 years 26% 25% 24% 24% 22% 22% 22% 35 to 54 years 27% 30% 29% 31% 30% 29% 28% 55 to 64 years 9% 7% 12% 8% 11% 8% 11% 65 and over 10% 11% 11% 10% 11% 11% 11% Median age 32 33 36 35 37 33 35 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000 and 2010 Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Household Size and Composition

Oakland has a high percentage of single adults and other non-family households (unrelated individuals living together). Nearly one-third of Oakland households consist of single persons, and about 30 percent consist of two people. More than a third (36 percent) of Oakland households have more than three people (mostly family households). The high percentage of smaller households in Oakland may be due, in part, to the relatively low proportion of housing units with more than two bedrooms compared to the surrounding suburban areas. According to the 2000 Census, nearly 70 percent of Oakland’s housing stock has two or fewer bedrooms, compared to 54 percent countywide.

The 2010 Census reported an increase in the number of households in the City. Of those households, 54 percent were family households (households with related individuals). This percentage was substantially below countywide figures. Even though the number of households has grown, there has been a decline in the average household and family size. The average household size has declined from 2.6 in 2000 to 2.49 in 2010. Similarly, the average family size also decreased, from 3.38 to

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 111 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

3.27. These trends are directly related to the decline in proportion of population groups with larger household sizes and the increase in the proportion of population groups with smaller household sizes. These changes in household size might be a reflection of the nationwide trend away from traditional family structures. The number of family households have scaled down from 86,347 in 2000 to 83,718 in 2010. Similarly, there has been a 10% decline in the number of family households with children between 2000 and 2010. White and Black households, which declined as a percentage of all households, have smaller average household sizes (2.21 and 2.25 in 2010 respectively) compared to Hispanic and Asian-origin households (3.76 and 2.66 in 2010 respectively).

Of Oakland’s family households with children, about 10% are single-parent households. The number of single-parent female-headed households declined from 14,932 in 2000 to 12,173 in 2010. In comparison, the number of single-parent male-headed households increased from 3,298 in 2000 to 3,627 in 2010. Although the number of single-parent households is small relative to the City’s total population, it still represents about 4% of the City’s population and will increase the need for housing accessible to childcare and other supportive services geared to support single parents.

Overcrowding increased between 1990 and 2000 (see Section G). Even though household and family size are trending downward, large households (3+ persons per household) are still significant (37% of total household population) and suggest that Oakland should plan for more housing to address the shortage of both affordable housing for large families (who need homes with three or more bedrooms) and the overall shortage of affordable housing that may cause smaller households to share homes.

Table 3-3, Table 3-4, and Table 3-5compare household size and composition by household type and provide information on household characteristics.

About two percent of the City’s population did not live in households in 2010. The “group quarters” population increased from 7,175 in the 2000 Census to 8,138 in the 2010 Census—a 13% increase. This demographic is broken-down into two general categories: institutional and non-institutional populations. Interestingly, the institutional population decreased from 2,894 in 2000 to 2,463 in 2010. These residents include inmates of correctional facilities, nursing home residents, and persons in other health care facilities that have no usual home elsewhere. Significantly, the non-institutional population increased by 33% from 4,281 in 2000 to 5,675 in 2010. These residents include college students in dormitories and persons in other non-institutional group quarters. Of this non-institutional group quarters population, 4,310 persons (a majority--53% of the total group quarters population) were in “other non-institutional facilities,” that reflects an increase of 15% over 2000. Other non- institutional facilities include: emergency transitional shelters or persons experiencing homelessness, group homes intended for adults, residential treatment centers for adults, religious group quarters, and job corps housing centers. Unfortunately, the Census does not further breakdown the populations per these facility types to understand the housing needs of these very distinct populations. Further analysis of special needs housing (including housing needs for persons with disabilities and the homeless population) is included in Section H.

112 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-3 Number of Persons per Household (2010)

Owner Renter Total Households Percent Households Percent Households

1 Person 16,540 26% 35,563 39% 52,103 2 Persons 21,046 33% 24,517 27% 45,563 3 Persons 10,235 16% 12,137 13% 22,372 4 Persons 8,045 13% 8,388 9% 16,433 5 Persons 3,531 6% 4,925 5% 8,456 6 Persons 1,641 3% 2,426 3% 4,067 7 + Persons 2,104 3% 2,693 3% 4,797 Total 63,142 41% 90,649 59% 153,791 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Note: Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Table 3-4 Average Household Size by Race (2010)

Population Group (Race) Average Household Size Pacific Islander 4.56 Other (One Race) 4.30 Hispanic or Latino 3.76 Native American 3.03 Asian Origin 2.66 Two or More Races 2.60 Black 2.25 White (not Hispanic/Latino) 2.21 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 113 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-5 Changes in Household Type (1990 – 2010)

Household by Type 1990 Percent 2000 Percent 2010 Percent Total Households 144,521 100% 150,790 100% 153,791 100% Average Household Size 2.52 -- 2.60 -- 2.49 -- Household Population Family Households (families) 83,823 58% 86,347 57% 83,718 54% Married-Couple Family 49,906 35% 51,332 34% 50,797 33% With Children N/A N/A 24,838 16% 22,818 15% Female Householder, 24,122 16% 26,723 18% 26,707 18% no spouse present With Children 18,815 13% 14,932 10% 12,173 8% Male Householder, no spouse 6,691 5% 8,040 5% 8,799 6% present With Children 2,571 2% 3,298 2% 3,627 2% Average Family Size 3.28 -- 3.38 -- 3.27 -- Non-family Households 60,698 42% 64,443 43% 70,073 46% Households with one or more non-relatives 21,456 15% 25,945 17% 38,940 25% Households with no non-relatives 123,065 85% 124,845 83% 114,851 75% Group Quarters (Non Household Population) Total Group Quarters 7,175 <2% 27,735 <2% 8,138 2% Institutionalized persons 2,894 <1% 13,214 <1% 2,463 1% Other persons in group quarters 4,281 1% 14,521 1% 5,675 1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000 and 2010 Note: Percentages represent percentage of all households. Percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Income

Between 1990 and 2000, Oakland’s median household income increased from $27,095 to $40,055, an increase of nearly 48 percent. The median income for families increased from $31,755 to $44,384 (approximately 40 percent), while median income for non-family households increased from $20,713 to $34,075 (approximately 70 percent). Table 3-6 shows the distribution of income for families and for households from the American Community Survey 5 year Sample from 2007-2011. These estimates show continued significant increases in median income over the year 2000 for both households and families.

114 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-6 Household and Family Income (2011)

Total Margin Total Margin Income Range Households of Error Percent Families of Error Percent Total 154,537 +/-1,547 100% 81,882 +/-1,177 100% Less than $10,000 12,259 +/-799 8% 5,164 +/-551 6% $10,000 to $14,999 11,744 +/-668 8% 4,114 +/-390 5% $15,000 to $24,999 18,313 +/-962 12% 9,454 +/-678 12% $25,000 to $34,999 15,109 +/-889 10% 8,169 +/-599 10% $35,000 to $49,999 18,187 +/-817 12% 9,018 +/-634 11% $50,000 to $74,999 24,713 +/-997 16% 12,086 +/-721 15% $75,000 to $99,999 16,347 +/-809 11% 8,887 +/-624 11% $100,000 to $149,999 18,740 +/-859 12% 11,576 +/-683 14% $150,000 to $199,999 8,499 +/-562 6% 5,521 +/-450 7% $200,000 or more 10,626 +/-695 7% 7,893 +/-561 10% Median Income (dollars) $51,144 +/-845 -- $58,237 +/-1,815 -- Mean Income (dollars) $76,867 +/-1,322 -- $90,362 +/-2,164 -- Source: American Community Survey 5-Year Sample 2007-2011

Between 2000 and 2011 a divergent trend occurred with respect to incomes in Oakland relative to incomes for the entire county. The median income for all households in Oakland as a percentage of the countywide median income continued to remain about the same as was reported in the last Housing Element (72 percent). The median income of families experienced a small decline as a percentage of the countywide median family income. Median income of non-family households (singles and unrelated individuals sharing housing) has increased dramatically. This change in income can be attributed to the in-migration of more affluent singles and non-family households.

Lower-Income Households

Much of the focus of the Housing Element is on the needs of households by income level. Incomes are defined as a percentage of the median income for the Oakland metropolitan statistical area (MSA), comprising Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Five categories are typically used to compare incomes. These categories are “extremely low-income,” “very low-income,” “low-income,” “moderate-income,” and “above-moderate-income.” Table 3-7 summarizes the definitions of these income groups. Table 3-8 shows the dollar thresholds for these income levels by household size according to HUD’s 2013 income guidelines. These guidelines are used by most agencies for defining who is “low-” or “moderate-” income for participation in various government programs.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 115 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-7 Definitions Used for Comparing Income Levels

Income Definitions Extremely Low-Income 30 percent or less of the Oakland MSA median income Very Low-Income 31 to 50 percent of the Oakland MSA Median Income Low-Income 51 to 80 percent of the Oakland MSA Median Income Moderate-Income 81 to 120 percent of the Oakland MSA Median Income Above-Moderate-Income More than 120 percent of the Oakland MSA Median Income

Table 3-8 2013 Income Limits, Oakland PMSA8

MSA INCOME LIMITS Oakland Household Size Median Family Income Fiscal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Year 2013 $89,200 Extremely Low $18,750 $21,400 $24,100 $26,750 $28,900 $31,050 $33,200 $35,350 Income

Very Low $31,250 $35,700 $40,150 $44,600 $48,200 $51,750 $55,350 $58,900 Income

Low $45,100 $51,550 $58,000 $64,400 $69,600 $74,750 $79,900 $85,050 Income

Median $62,500 $71,400 $80,300 $89,200 $96,400 $103,500 $110,700 $117,800 Income

Moderate $74,950 $85,650 $96,350 $107,050 $115,600 $124,150 $132,750 $141,300 Income Source: HUD, http://www.huduser.org/datasets/il/il2013/2013summary.odn?inputname=METRO41860MM5775*Oakland- Fremont%2C+CA+HUD+Metro+FMR+Area&selection_type=hmfa&year=2013

Table 3-9 compares the proportion of the City’s population at each income level in 2010 based on the Oakland PMSA median income (HUD 2006-2010 estimate).

8 Oakland MSA = Alameda and Contra Costa counties.

116 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-9 Percent of Oakland Households by Income (2010)

Income Category Percent of Households Extremely Low Income 23% Very Low 14% Low 15% Moderate 48% Above Moderate Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: CHAS Data Book, based on 2006-2010 5-Year Average Data.

Over half of the City’s households are extremely low-, very low- and low-income, virtually unchanged from 1990 and 2000. This is significantly above the countywide average of approximately 40 percent. According to Table 3-9, HUD’s 2006-2010 5-year Average from the CHAS Data Book for the City of Oakland, the extremely-low income population is approximately 23%. The lack of significant change in income distribution is consistent with the previous discussion regarding the income gap between residents in Oakland and countywide. The lack of change also means that socio- economic and housing trends in Oakland in the late 1990s and 2000s did not greatly influence the income distribution of City residents by the year 2010.

If this income trend continues, the City will experience a growing demand for assisted rental housing and first-time homebuyer assistance among low- and moderate-income family households, while non- family households may be better able to pay market costs for housing.

The larger percentage of lower-income households in Oakland is also reflected by the percent of households with public assistance incomes. Households receiving public assistance generally have extremely low-incomes. According to American Community 5-year Survey 2011, about 5.3 percent of all households in Oakland received public assistance, compared to 3.6 percent of households countywide. Although the percent of households with public assistance incomes declined by more than half between 2000 and 2011, the percentage of the Oakland population with such incomes is still significantly higher than the countywide percentage.

Although the number of families on public assistance in Oakland declined between 2000 and 2011, there is an increase in the poverty rate among families with children. Despite the movement of many families off welfare, the movement of these families into low-paying jobs did not raise their incomes above the poverty level (see discussion below on poverty rates). Geographic Concentrations of Low Income Population

As is the case for race and ethnicity, Oakland has clear geographic patterns of concentration by income. As seen in the maps on the following pages, in most of the neighborhoods in the flatland areas of the City, at least 51 percent of the population qualifies as “low and moderate income” under guidelines established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. These federal definitions correspond to the terms “low” and “very-low” income as used in the Housing Element. Within those areas, there are neighborhoods with percentages that are more than 1.5 times the citywide average, while in the hill areas, most neighborhoods have concentrations less than half the citywide average.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 117 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Figure 3-6 Areas With a Majority of Very-Low and Low Income Persons (2010)

118 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Figure 3-7 Areas of High and Low Concentration of Very-Low and Low Income Persons

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 119 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023 Income and Family Status

The trend of income and family status in the 1990 and 2000 Census and the 2011 ACS indicates that the gap between household, family and non-family household incomes in Oakland and those countywide is about the same as reported in the last Housing Element. Oakland’s family income as a percentage of County income narrowed considerably from 1990 to 2000 and stayed about the same in 2011. Family households did not fare as well, however. The median family income in Oakland decreased between 1990 and 2000. In 2011, Oakland families still only earned just 67 percent of families countywide. Oakland non-family incomes in 2011 were about 91% of Alameda County non- family incomes.

One explanation for this divergent trend is that Oakland has experienced an influx of relatively more affluent single- and two-person non-family households since the 1990s. The City also experienced an increase in the number of families who migrated to the United States between 1990 and 2000 and who tend to have lower incomes than the population as a whole.

Unless the income trend for family households improves, Oakland will face a growing demand for affordable family housing for those earning less than the median income, particularly those with incomes less than half the median income.

Table 3-10 and Table 3-11 compare median household, family, and non-family incomes and the gap between incomes in Oakland and those countywide in 1990 and 2000, and 2011 (respectively).

Table 3-10 Median Incomes in Oakland and Alameda County (1990 and 2000)

Oakland Income Oakland Alameda County as a Percent of County Incomes 1990 2000 1990 2000 1990 2000 Median Household $27,095 $40,055 $37,544 $55,946 72% 72% Income Median Family $31,755 $44,384 $45,073 $65,857 71% 67% Income Median Non- $20,713 $34,075 $24,984 $37,290 83% 92% Family Income Source: U. S Census Bureau 1990 and 2000

120 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-11 Median Incomes in Oakland and Alameda County (2011)

Oakland Income Oakland Alameda County as a Percent of County Incomes Margin Margin 2011 2011 2011 of Error of Error Median Household $51,144 +/-845 $70,821 +/-789 72% Income Median Family $58,237 +/-1,815 $87,012 +/-1,086 67% Income Median Non- $41,454 +/-1,215 $45,756 +/-930 91% Family Income Source: American Community 5-Year Survey 2007-2011 Note: Margin of Error for American Community Survey 2007-2011 data represents the degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability.

Income and Tenure

As indicated in Table 3-12-a, renters were more likely than homeowners to have low incomes. Nearly one-third (32 percent) of renters in Oakland had extremely low-incomes in 2000 (30 percent or less of median income), and about half earned 50 percent or less of median income. In contrast, about ten percent of homeowners had extremely low-incomes in 2000, and about 20 percent earned 50 percent or less of median income. Both of these trends continued in 2010 (see Table 3-12-b).

Similar to 2000 Census data, in 2010 homeowners had earned more than twice the median income of renters.

Households earning 50 percent or less of median income, especially those earning 30 percent or less are most likely to require rental assistance. The large percentage of renters with extremely low and very low incomes suggests a growing need for rental assistance because these households are unlikely to achieve homeownership or benefit from homeownership assistance programs. Incomes for these households are unlikely to keep pace with rising rents as evidenced in Section D, Housing Cost.

There are also a significant number of owner households with extremely low-, very low- and low- incomes (nearly 30% of the ownership population). Households earning less than 50 percent of median income are especially vulnerable to financial problems that can make it difficult to meet housing expenses and properly maintain their homes. Many of these households (particularly those who have not paid off their home loans) may need assistance in paying energy bills, and refinancing to reduce interest costs, and home maintenance and repairs.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 121 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-12-a Income by Tenure (1990 and 2000)

Renters Owners 1990 2000 1990 2000 Income Level % of all % of all % of all % of all Number Number Number Number renters renters owners owners Extremely Low 26,325 32% 27,539 32% 6,314 10% 6,234 10% Very Low 15,114 18% 15,858 18% 6,497 11% 5,759 9% Low 13,378 16% 14,578 17% 7,640 12% 7,499 12% Moderate/ 28,260 34% 28,878 33% 41,241 67% 41,484 68% Above Moderate Total 83,074 100% 86,583 100% 61,692 100% 60,976 100% Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: 1990 and 2000 CHAS Data Books, derived from 1990 and 2000 Census. Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

Table 3-12-b Income by Tenure (2010)

Renter Owner Income Level % of all % of all Number Number renters owners Extremely Low 30,250 34% 5,615 9% Very Low 15,245 17% 6,540 10% Low 15,355 17% 8,110 12% Moderate/ 28,370 32% 45,380 69% Above Moderate Total 89,220 100% 65,645 100% Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development CHAS Data based on American Community Survey 2006-2010 5 year Average Data Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

Income and Race/Ethnicity

There are also significant differences in income by race and ethnicity in Oakland. Households of White origin, who saw significant population gains between 2000 and 2011, had the highest incomes in the City. Households of Asian or Hispanic or Latino origin saw modest population gains, however these households have significantly lower incomes. In the time period between 1990 and 2000, the migration of these population groups to the City could explain much of the growing disparity in family income between Oakland and the rest of Alameda County, because a larger percentage of these residents tend to live in family households than the population as a whole. Black/African American households, though their proportion of the population has declined, have among the lowest incomes in the City.

122 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-13 compares median income levels by race and ethnicity in 2011, and Table 3-14 compares income categories by race and ethnicity in 2000. Family status and culture could be important indicators of whether these residents will have different housing preferences and needs compared to other population groups. The City may need to consider the characteristics of low-income Black, Asian and Hispanic or Latino households in its planning for affordable housing and implementation of housing programs.

Table 3-13 Median Household Income by Race/Ethnicity (2011)

Race/Ethnicity Median Income Margin of Error +/- 2,961 White (not Hispanic/Latino) $81,884 +/- 1,488 Black/African American $34,928 +/- 18,755 Native American $34,702 +/- 3,248 Asian Origin $43,834 +/- 10,392 Pacific Islander $44,020 +/- 2,406 Other Race $41,482 +/- 5,138 Two or More Races $51,167 +/- 2,159 Hispanic or Latino $45,233

Median Household Income $51,144 +/- 845 Source: American Community 5-Year Survey 2007-2011. Median Household Income in the Past 12 months (In 2011 Inflation Adjusted Dollars)

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 123 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-14 Income Distribution by Race/Ethnicity (2000) Number and Percent of Households

Native Pacific All White Black Asian Hispanic Income Category American Islander

55,390 10,405 26,255 9,125 249 173 8,855 Very Low (<50% AMI) 37% 21% 47% 47% 45% 43% 43% 22,077 5,735 9,150 2,650 55 69 4,305 Low (50-80% AMI) 15% 12% 16% 14% 10% 17% 21% Moderate and Above 70,362 32,870 20,185 7,675 253 164 7,564 Moderate (>80% AMI) 47% 67% 36% 39% 45% 40% 36% 150,748 49,010 55,590 19,450 557 406 20,724 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Sources: U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 Note: Totals for racial/ethnic groups to do not sum to the total for all households because “Other” race is not included.

Poverty Rate

The poverty rate is another relative measure of financial well-being. The poverty level is a federally defined measure of the minimum income needed for subsistence living. The poverty level is an important indicator of severe financial distress, and the rate of poverty in a community (proportion of the population with poverty level incomes or less) provides important information about individuals and families who have the greatest financial need. The dollar threshold for poverty is adjusted by the federal government for household size and composition, but not by region, and tends to understate the true extent of poverty in high cost areas such as the San Francisco Bay area.

According to the 2000 Census, approximately 19.4 percent of the City’s population was below the poverty level, compared to 11 percent countywide. Despite an improving economy between the mid- 1990s and 2000, poverty in Oakland remained a significant problem and actually rose slightly. Families with children in Oakland had high poverty rates and were twice as likely to live in poverty as those countywide. Female-headed households with children had the highest poverty rates, twice or more the poverty rate than among the general population. Female-headed households with children were 50 percent more likely than female-headed households countywide to live in poverty. Single mothers with children under five were more at risk of poverty than any other population group—43 percent of these households live in poverty in Oakland.

In contrast, seniors had significantly lower poverty rates, although seniors in Oakland were more likely to live in poverty than seniors living elsewhere in the county.

The persistently high poverty rate in Oakland, particularly among families and single parents, suggests that Oakland will continue to experience a high demand for subsidized rental housing and financial assistance for home repairs and utility payments among homeowners who live in poverty. Low-cost family housing will continue to be an urgent need in Oakland. Access to childcare and supportive services for families, particularly single parents, will also be a high priority need.

124 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-15 compares poverty rates for the City of Oakland and Alameda County according to the 2000 Census. Table 3-16 provides Federal Poverty Thresholds for 2014.

Table 3-15 Poverty Rates (2000)

Alameda Oakland County Total Population 19% 11% All Adults 17% 10% 65 and Over 13% 8% Related Children 28% 14% All Families 16% 8% Families with Children 23% 11% Households with Female Householders 30% 20% Female Headed Families with Children 37% 26% Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2000

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 125 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-16 Federal Poverty Thresholds (2014)

Persons in Family/Household Income One Person $11,670 Two Persons $15,730 Three Persons $19,790 Four Persons $23,850 Five Persons $27,910 Six Persons $31,970 Seven Persons $36,030 Eight Persons $40,090 For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,060 for each additional person.

B. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS Housing Composition

Oakland experienced a net gain of over 13,113 housing units between 2000 and 2013, according to the California Department of Finance (DOF). Most of the increase in the housing stock between 2000 and 2013 was through the construction of multi-family housing. Over 10,100 multi-family housing units were constructed between 2000 and 2013. About 30%9 of the multifamily housing constructed since 2000 has been publicly assisted rental housing for lower-income households although there has been significant market rate development in that same time period.

The overall mix of housing did not change considerably between 2000 and 2013, according to the California Department of Finance. In 2013, approximately 47 percent of the City’s housing stock consisted of single-family homes, 33 percent was in multifamily dwellings in structures of five or more units, and 19 percent was in multifamily dwellings in structures of two to four units.

The increase in multifamily housing construction can be attributable to the City’s “10K” plan10 and other housing initiatives. Both rental and condominium development along with some townhome units have dominated the number of units constructed in the 2000’s. Single family detached units account for a relatively small percentage of new units. City records on housing units constructed or under construction since 1999, pending projects, and housing opportunity sites suggests that the majority of homes constructed during the next decade will continue to be multifamily structures (such as townhomes, condominiums, apartments, and lofts).

9 City of Oakland data shows that there have been approximately 3,032 new affordable multi-unit housing developments constructed from 2000 to 2013. 10 Per Wikipedia: “The 10K Plan was an urban planning doctrine for Downtown Oakland to attract 10,000 new residents to the city's downtown and Jack London Square areas…Former Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown continued his predecessor Elihu Harris' public policy of supporting downtown housing development in the area defined as the Central Business District in Oakland's 1998 General Plan. Since Brown worked toward the stated goal of bringing an additional 10,000 residents to Downtown Oakland, his plan was known as "10K." … The 10k plan has touched the historic Old Oakland district, the Chinatown district, the Uptown district, and Downtown.”

126 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-17 shows the changes in the housing stock for the City of Oakland between 1990 and 2013, and the California Department of Finance’s estimate of dwelling units as of 2013.

Table 3-17 Housing Estimates, City of Oakland (1990 through 2013)

1990 to 2000 2000 to 2013 1990 2000 2013 Change Change Type Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Single

Family Detached 68,702 44% 71,424 45% 2,722 4% 74,084 43% 2,660 4% Attached 5,736 4% 6,645 4% 909 16% 6,884 4% 239 4% Multiple 2 to 4 29,388 19% 28,972 18% -416 -1% 32,625 19% 3,653 13% 5 Plus 48,847 32% 50,008 32% 1,161 2% 56,470 33% 6,462 13% Mobile Homes 186 <1% 364 <1% 178 96% 555 <1% 191 52% Other 1,878 1% 92 <1% -1,786 -95% n/a n/a n/a n/a Occupied 144,521 93% 150,787 96% 6,266 4% 154,614 91% 3,827 3% Total 154,737 100% 157,505 100% 2,768 2% 170,618 100% 13,113 8% Sources: California Department of Finance, City/County Population and Housing Estimates (E-5 Report); 2000 Census and 2011-13 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Note: The 2000 Census count of occupied housing units varies by three dwelling units from the household count in Table—they come from different census reports.

Housing Occupancy

Vacancy

As noted in the footnote at the beginning of this chapter, in the Census 2010 for Oakland, the vacancy rate more than doubled to 9.38% over what was reported in the 2000 Census. Also noted in this footnote, the 2010 Census showed a population decrease of 8,842 from 2000 Census population count yet an increase of 12,202 housing units. The vacancy rate could explain the discrepancy between the population and housing unit count differences but it is not supported by other similar data. The USPS 90-day Vacancy Data shows a vacancy rate of 2% reported March 31, 2010 -- much lower than the 2010 Census. It is conceivable but unlikely that the Census 2010 vacancy rate is attributable to the foreclosure crisis. If that were the case, all homeownership units lost due to foreclosure from 2006- 2009 would need to have been vacant at the time the 2010 Census was taken in addition to other types of vacancies (e.g.: 2000 Census vacancy rate) in order to reach the magnitude of the vacancy rate reported in 2010.

Table 3-18 compares occupancy and vacancy rates in Oakland and Alameda County for 1990, 2000 and 2010. Additionally, in an attempt to understand the discrepancy in vacancy rates from 2000 to 2010, maps of vacancy rate by Census tract and by tenure were made to understand where Census data shows hot spots of high vacancies. See Figure 3-8 and Figure 3-9.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 127 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-18 Housing Occupancy (1990, 2000 and 2010)

Oakland Alameda County

1990 Percent 2000 Percent 2010 Percent 1990 Percent 2000 Percent 2010 Percent Total housing units 154,737 100% 157,508 100% 169,710 100% 504,109 100% 540,183 100% 582,549 100% Occupied units 144,521 93.3% 150,790 95.7% 153,791 90.6% 479,518 95.1% 523,366 96.9% 545,138 93.6% Vacant units 10,216 6.7% 6,718 4.3% 15,919 9.4% 24,591 4.9% 16,817 3.1% 37,411 6.4% Vacant – seasonal, migrant, recreational, 159 0.1% 474 0.3% 633 0.4% 592 0.1% 2,084 0.4% 2,292 0.4% occasional use Rented or Sold, 1,142 0.7% 769 0.5% 795 0.5% 2,532 0.5% 2,227 0.4% 2,316 0.4% Awaiting Occupancy Other Vacant1 2,389 3.1% N/A -- 4,090 2.4% 4,752 0.9% N/A -- 9,862 1.7% Net Vacant Units 6,526 4.5% 5,475 3.5% 10,401 6.1% 16,715 3.3% 12,506 2.3% 22,941 3.9% Effective Vacancy Rate Owners 1.6% 2.0% 3.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.8% ------Renters 6.7% 3.0% 8.5% 3,8% 2.6% 6.4%

Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 1This is a 1990 Census category only.

128 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Figure 3-8 Homeowner Vacancy Rate (By 2010 Census Tracts)

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 129 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Figure 3-9 Rental Vacancy Rate (By 2010 Census Tracts)

130 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Tenure

A majority of Oakland households are renters, about 57 percent in 1990, 59 percent in 2000, and 59% in 2010. Oakland’s homeownership rate stayed the same between 2000 and 2010. Only non- Hispanic White households had a majority of homeowners in 2010, and then only a small majority (52 percent in 1990, 56 percent in 2000, and 50 percent in 2010). Other racial and ethnic groups had homeownership rates between 28 percent for Native Americans (representing a large decline from 2000 data) to 41 percent for Asian/Pacific Islanders. Table 3-19 compares tenure by race in 1990, 2000, and 2010.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 131 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-19 Tenure by Race and Hispanic Origin (1990, 2000 and 2010)

Owners Renters Percent Owners Percent Renters Race 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 Non-Hispanic or Latino White 27,391 25,613 30,690 25,754 23,411 30,418 52% 56% 50% 48% 42% 50% Black 21,760 20,214 16,093 39,763 35,985 31,049 35% 36% 34% 65% 64% 66% Native American 196 269 277 485 596 714 29% 50% 28% 71% 50% 72% Asian/Pacific Islander 6,435 8,168 10,139 9,418 11,821 14,712 50% 41% 41% 50% 59% 59% Other1 95 5,577 5,943 153 11,515 13,756 38% 33% 30% 62% 67% 70% Hispanic or Latino Hispanic or Latino 4,345 6,898 8,268 8,729 13,816 17,069 37% 41% 33% 63% 59% 67% Total 60,222 62,489 63,142 84,368 88,301 90,649 43% 41% 41% 57% 59% 59% Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000 and 2010. 1Other category includes two or more races, reported only for the 2000 Census. Note: Total number of households may not equal totals in other tables because tenure by race and ethnicity is not based on a 100 percent count.

132 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES

CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Homeownership is closely related to incomes. According to the American Community Survey, in 2011 (and detailed in Table 3-13), White households had the highest median income, nearly $82,000 (with a margin of error under $3,000). The next highest median income was for the population of persons who self-identified as two or more races who had an income of just over $51,000 (with a margin of error of just over $5,000). African Americans had close to the lowest median income of just under $35,000 (with a margin of error of under $1,500). The difference between the highest median income and the range of income for other Race/Ethnicity groups (not accounting for the margin of error) is between nearly $31,000 and $47,000 (Black, Hispanic, Asian households and households of other races or more than one race). Given this disparity of household incomes, there is still relatively high ownership for households of Black, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic origin. This might indicate a particular need to provide continued support of low-income ownership households in the form of loans to improve aging housing stock anti-predatory lending efforts.

The fallout of the foreclosure crisis can also be illustrated in Table 3-19 though thankfully it is not as dramatic as expected. Homeownership rates have decreased across all Race/Ethnicity categories with the exception of those of Asian/Pacific Islander origin whose homeownership rate stayed the same as in 2000.

Much of the growth in Oakland’s population from 2000 to 2010 consisted of populations who cannot afford to purchase homes. Among other reasons for the high proportion of renters may be the losses due to the foreclosure crisis—cumulatively from 2006-2012 there were 10,863 units lost to foreclosure (see Table 3-35 for details).

The trend in housing tenure has several possible policy implications for the City:

1. The City can continue to facilitate the construction of rental housing for those who cannot, and probably would not be able to, purchase homes (even with financial assistance), very low-income households most at-risk from rising rental rents, and households that do not seek homeownership but can afford market rents. Increasing the rental housing stock will ease difficulties associated with the rising rental rates and availability.

2. The City can seek to increase homeownership by facilitating and providing assistance to projects that provide low- and moderate-income homeownership opportunities.

3. The City can continue to improve, and facilitate private investment in, the existing housing stock to better meet the needs of Oakland’s changing population.

4. The City could create programs that would permit renters to purchase homes that they rent. In contrast to the last Housing Element and, again, another example of the repercussions of the foreclosure crisis, the homeownership rate in Oakland decreased in all but one age category for homeowners when compared to 2000 Census data. Only homeowners from ages 60-64 had the highest increase in rate of ownership at 61% in 2010. As it was anticipated in 2000, in 2010 for those 75 years and older ownership rate decreased by 7%. Many older seniors either have declining incomes, forcing them to sell their homes, or choose to live in non-owned housing that better meets their changing lifestyle, physical, and supportive services needs.

Since about half of the homeowners in the City are over the age of 55 years, this may suggest an increasing need for financial assistance to lower-income seniors to make modifications for greater accessibility and mobility within and around the home, energy efficiency, and other home repairs and improvements that will allow seniors to live longer, independent lives in their present locations. For older adults wishing to move to housing specifically designed for seniors, programs that provide more

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 133 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

housing choices for this age group may be indicated. If seniors are “trapped” in their homes due to financial or other circumstances, turnover in the housing market will be affected. By providing seniors with more housing options, the City can facilitate homeownership for younger households who wish to purchase homes.

Table 3-20 compares homeownership rates by age.

Table 3-20 Homeownership Rates by Age, Oakland (2010)

Age Owners Renters Ownership Rate Rental Rate 15 to 24 413 5,570 2% <16% 25 to 34 4,979 24,496 <15% <3% 35 to 44 12,364 20,139 <5% <4% 45 to 54 13,844 15,859 <14% 0% 55 to 59 7,568 6,799 24% 58% 60 to 64 7,531 5,433 61% 61% 65 to 74 8,608 6,235 10% 14% 75 and over 7,835 6,118 <7% <7% Total 63,142 90,649 41% 59% Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2010 Note: Total number of households may not equal totals in other tables because tenure by age is not based on a 100 percent count.

C. AGE AND CONDITION OF HOUSING STOCK

Is Housing Improving or Deteriorating in Oakland?

The age and condition of the housing stock provide additional measures of housing adequacy and availability. Based on the 2000 Census data, the last time the decennial Census measured the age of the housing stock, more than one-third of Oakland’s housing was built prior to 1940. Older homes are generally less energy-efficient and, unless upgraded, will have older electrical, plumbing, and heating systems that are likely to suffer from deferred maintenance or deterioration. In addition, these older homes present other challenges to health and safety, from lead-based paint and asbestos to structural and seismic deficiencies.

In 2014, the City hired BAE Urban Economics, Inc. to conduct at Housing Conditions survey for the 2015-2023 Housing Element. The survey instrument is included in Appendix A. The survey looked at approximately 1,700 residential structures in Oakland, representing about 18,000 housing units, and the findings are reported in the “Sample Survey of Housing Conditions” section, below.

Some of the indicators of substandard housing, such as an aging housing stock and the number of dwelling units lacking complete facilities, indicate that the City’s housing stock may have deteriorated since 1990. Other indicators, such as the rehabilitation of earthquake-damaged residential hotels and the increase in private investment in many residential neighborhoods, suggest that housing conditions in Oakland may be improving. Long-term trends from the 1960s indicate that housing conditions may have improved, if for no other reason than thousands of older, often substandard dwelling units were removed during the 1960s and 1970s to make way for public works

134 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

and redevelopment projects followed by the recent developments of new housing in the downtown area and investments in housing improvements by non-profit affordable housing providers and the Oakland Housing Authority.

According to the 2000 Census, approximately 2,200 dwelling units had no heating systems, over 1,600 dwelling units lacked complete plumbing, and nearly 2,100 dwelling units lacked complete kitchen facilities. Each of these measures showed a higher incidence than in 199011. It should be noted that a significant percentage of these housing units are in single-room occupancy buildings that do not have private bath and kitchen facilities for individual dwelling units.

The National Center for Healthy Housing, in its 2009 analysis of the American Housing Survey of Health-related Housing Problems, found that out of 45 metropolitan areas studied, the Oakland Metropolitan Area ranked 33rd for basic housing and in last place at 45th for healthy housing. Deficiencies found to be most unhealthy included open cracks or holes in walls, broken plaster/peeling paint, water leaks from inside and outside, roofing, siding and window problems.

Health hazards, such as presence of asbestos, lead-based paint, or asthma triggers can also be an indicator of housing condition. The City estimates up to two-thirds of the housing units in Oakland could contain lead-based paint. The large percentage of homes constructed before the 1960s increases the probability of lead-based paint and lead hazards in these homes since this type of paint was commonly used up to that time.

Oakland has the highest rate of asthma in Alameda County, which itself has the third highest rate of asthma in the state. Oakland children require hospitalization for severe asthma attacks at a rate four times higher than the state average. Asthma causes school absences, raises health care costs for treatment and emergency room visits, leads to work absences and limits children’s activities and impacts their quality of life. According to the Federal Healthy Homes Work Group publication Advancing Healthy Housing: A Strategy for Action, an estimated 39% of children under six with asthma nationwide are impacted by exposure to indoor air hazards in their homes. Poor housing conditions including mold and moisture, pest infestations, and poor ventilation are asthma triggers and contribute to high rates of emergency room visits and hospitalizations of children and adults with asthma, an indicator of housing conditions in Oakland.

The City of Oakland’s Housing Rehabilitation programs address substandard housing conditions including lead-based paint and other health and safety issues as well as providing accessibility improvements, primarily for low-income homeowners. The Alameda County Community Development Agency’s Healthy Homes Department provides education, lead-safety skills training, and on-site consultations for Oakland property owners and carries out lead poisoning prevention and asthma trigger interventions for Oakland residents. The ACHHD has remediated lead hazards in 266 Oakland housing units since 2009 and works with the Oakland Housing Authority to educate owners of housing units participating in the Section 8 program about lead-based paint, mold, and other healthy housing issues to promote safe and healthy property maintenance.

Whether or not housing conditions in Oakland are improving overall, they remain a problem by any of the measures discussed above. Housing conditions in the City’s oldest, poorest neighborhoods with the highest proportion of renters and high foreclosure rates are likely to suffer the most from substandard housing conditions. According to the City of Oakland’s Consolidated Plan (2010-2015), over 89% of large low-income families (5 or more) in Oakland who rent have at least one housing problem: cost burden, physical defects in the housing unit and/or overcrowding.

11 According to the 1990 Census, approximately 1,300 dwelling units lacked heating, nearly 2,000 dwelling units lacked complete plumbing, and nearly 1,300 dwelling units did not have complete kitchen facilities.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 135 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Local government can help ensure that the local housing stock is maintained and improved in a safe and healthy manner by providing financial and technical assistance to properties occupied by low income households and by carrying out appropriate code enforcement programs. These programs can also support the community by reducing neighborhood blight and preserving property values. Rental units are more likely to have unhealthy housing conditions than the overall housing stock as shown by five key indicators of unhealthy housing in the 2011 American Housing Survey (mold, musty smells, moderate-to-severe physical problems, excess cold, and lack of a working carbon monoxide alarm). Rental units make up approximately 59% of Oakland’s housing stock. For these reasons, it is likely that the City will need to continue its active role in housing code enforcement and providing financial assistance to property owners who cannot afford to maintain or repair their homes.

Age of the Housing Stock as an Indicator of Housing Condition

The age of Oakland’s housing stock suggests the potential for deterioration, although the age of housing, by itself, is not a definitive measure of housing condition. Many communities have a preponderance of housing more than 40 years old but little housing rehabilitation or replacement need. The age of housing, when correlated with income and the proportion of rental housing, can provide a reasonable measure of housing condition. Empirical evidence suggests that communities with high proportions of housing more than 40 years old, lower-income households, and higher rates of rental housing will usually have a higher proportion of housing in need of repair than similar communities with higher incomes and a higher proportion of ownership housing.

Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of the City’s housing was constructed before 1960 and is more than 40 years old. More than one-third (35 percent) of housing units were constructed before 1940 and are over 60 years old. Table 3-21 summarizes the age of the housing stock in Oakland. Figure 3-10, Figure 3-11, and Figure 3-12 illustrate housing stock age across the City of Oakland.

Table 3-21 Age of Housing Units (2000)

Year Number of Units Percentage 1939 or earlier 55,339 35% 1940 to 1959 47,698 30% 1960 to 1969 22,092 14% 1970 to 1979 16,862 11% 1980 to 1989 7,713 5% 1990 to March 2000 7,801 5% Total 157,505 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000

136 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Figure 3-10 Age of Structure Built: Pre-1970 (2000 Census)

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 137 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Figure 3-11 Age of Structure Built: 1970-1999 (2000 Census)

138 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Figure 3-12 Age of Structure Built: 1999-2000 (2000 Census)

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 139 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

2014 Sample Survey of Housing Conditions

In 2014, the City conducted a housing conditions survey for the 2015-2023 Housing Element12. The survey instrument is included in Appendix A13. The survey looked at approximately 1,700 randomly selected residential structures in Oakland, representing about 18,000 housing units. The survey evaluated a number of measures, such as structure type, windows, doors, roofing and siding. The sample size of 1,700 structures were evenly distributed across nine planning areas throughout the City.14 At a 95 percent confidence level, this means that the results of this survey are accurate with a margin of error of plus or minus seven residential units.

The 2014 Oakland Housing Conditions Survey was a survey of exterior housing conditions, sometimes referred to as a “windshield survey.” This means that housing surveyors were only able to evaluate the physical conditions of a residential structure and its immediate surroundings as visible from the public right-of-way. This survey did not include any evaluation of interior housing conditions or any other physical condition not detectable from the street. Based on the results of this survey of exterior housing conditions, BAE estimates the following profile of housing conditions among an estimated total of 170,825 housing units in Oakland:

• Over three quarters (78 percent) of Oakland’s housing units are estimated to be in sound condition. These estimated 134,000 units show no signs of exterior damage or deferred maintenance on the portions of the structures visible from the public right-of-way.

• One fifth (20 percent) of housing units in Oakland are estimated to be in need of minor rehabilitation or repair. These estimated 34,000 units are in need of minor repairs such as partial re-painting or minor repair or replacement of a window or door.

• Moderate to substantial rehabilitation or repair is needed for an estimated 2,600 housing units in Oakland. These units (less than two percent of all units in Oakland) are in structures that show major damage such as missing siding, holes in the roof or a roof that is leaning, a tilted or cracked foundation, or missing windows or doors.

• A small number of units are completely dilapidated and in need of replacement or complete rehabilitation. In Oakland, an estimated 260 housing units show signs of excessive neglect and appear to require demolition or major rehabilitation to become habitable. This survey method is valuable in that it can provide a snapshot evaluation of the basic structural and exterior conditions of the City’s housing stock in a cost-effective and timely manner that respects the privacy of residents. However, the “windshield” survey method is limited in that housing deficiencies requiring close examination to detect are excluded from the survey results and generally result in an under-estimation of the number of units in a given geography with structural deficiencies that may merit repair or rehabilitation. This is particularly true in dense urban environments such as

12 The City hired BAE Urban Economics, Inc. to conduct the survey. 13 The full BAE report, analyzing the survey results, will be included in the final Housing Element, in Fall, 2014. 14 The Port of Oakland and Oakland International Airport are excluded from the survey.

140 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Oakland, where residential structures are typically close together and allow for very limited evaluation from the public-right-of-way.

The results of this survey should be used in conjuncture with other sources of information regarding the condition of the City’s housing stock that are readily available to the City. These sources include the estimated age of the housing stock, foreclosure and vacancy records, data and results from past rehabilitation programs, and code compliance and enforcement records.

Presence of Lead-Based Paint

The presence of lead-based paint in housing can also be an indicator of unsafe housing conditions, particularly for households with children. Extrapolating from the 2008-2012 American Housing Survey 5 year estimates, over 80%, or approximately 142,000 units of Oakland housing were built before 1978, the year lead-based paint was banned from residential use. Lead-based paint becomes more hazardous as the older layers break down and become deteriorated over time, including normal wear and tear on friction surfaces. Unsafe painting and renovations on these homes can also create lead dust hazards and specialized training and lead safe work practices are now required under Federal and State law for most work disturbing lead-based paint. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and California’s Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Branch, lead paint is the primary cause of lead exposure for children who live in older homes. The California Legislature has declared that “childhood lead exposure represents the most significant childhood environmental problem in the state today” (California Health & Safety. Code, § 124125). Dwelling units constructed before the 1960s are most likely to contain hazardous lead paint conditions.

Childhood lead poisoning is a significant public health problem in California. ACHHD reports that lead poisoning is particularly prevalent in the San Antonio, Fruitvale, and East Oakland areas, which have a confluence of low household incomes, low rents, concentrations of older housing (much in deteriorated condition), and concentrations of families with children under the age of six. The ACHHD reports that within Alameda County, both high risk areas and cases of lead poisoning are more prevalent in Oakland than in other jurisdictions.

Table 3-22 summarizes the estimated number of housing units in Oakland with lead-based paint that could potentially present a hazard.

It should be noted that care must be used in interpreting these numbers as these figures are based on national averages that could vary by region. Also the presence of lead-based paint does not automatically indicate that serious lead hazards exist. Serious lead hazards exist when conditions such as chipping, peeling, cracking or paint-disturbing work or activities cause lead to be released from the paint and result in lead exposure to persons in and around the affected housing unit.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 141 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-22 Incidence of Lead-Based Paint (1990)

Renter-Occupied Units Owner-Occupied Units

Year Built Total Low Moderate Total Low Moderate

Pre-1940 25,326 10,006 10,373 29,290 1,635 2,186 (with lead) (22,793) (9,005) (9,336) (26,361) (1,471) (1,967) 1940 – 1959 25,399 9,166 11,741 20,431 997 1,830 (with lead) (20,319) (7,333) (9,393) (16,345) (798) (1,464) 1960 - 1979 26,128 9,728 10,903 8,129 177 256

(with lead) (16,200) (6,031) (6,760) (5,040) (110) (159) Sources: Oakland Consolidated Plan. Data from U.S. Department of HUD; U.S. Census Bureau, 1990

D. HOUSING COST

The Bay Area is one of the most expensive housing markets in the country. In Oakland, rents and median sales prices rose slowly during much of the 1990s, price increases accelerated in the late 1990s and continued to increase rapidly until 2007. From 2008 to approximately 2012, prices declined considerably as the housing bubble burst and the foreclosure crisis ensued. In 2013 housing costs (both market rents and home sales prices) have had significant increases with prices in some zip codes reaching heights close to those at the peak of the housing bubble.

Comparing 1990 and 2000 Census data and American Community Survey (ACS) data on Median Home Values and Rents15, the widening gap between housing costs and incomes is especially acute for family households, whose incomes lagged in the 1990s, 2000s and through 2010 and who represented a large share of Oakland’s population growth during that period. According to the ACS 2011 5-year survey data, the widening gap between housing costs and incomes continued. Increases in overpayment and overcrowding in the 1990s and 2000s (though in 2010 the number of persons per household has decreased slightly) are further indicators of the problems faced by lower-income households, especially family households, and those with very low-incomes. Table 3-23 compares this data.

The following sections evaluate both ownership and rental housing in light of the gap between housing costs and income. Looking both at recent sales prices and market rental rates, data indicate that the widening gap trend continues into the second decade of the millennium. The construction of subsidized rental housing also continues to be a challenge as the subsidy cost per unit assumption continues to climb resulting in more challenges to provide more deeply affordable units.

15 Comparing Census and American Community Survey is typically not recommended. This comparison was done per guidance from California Housing and Community Development Department, Housing Element Requisite Analysis.

142 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Development trends in Oakland (see Chapter 4, Land Inventory) suggest that market rate housing constructed, under construction, or approved since 2007 contains, or will contain, some housing units affordable to moderate-income small households and families. By contrast, units affordable to very low- and low-income households are not mandated in market rate projects and require a significant amount of financial assistance. If these trends in housing costs and incomes continue in Oakland, the City may need strategies to:

1. increase the supply of affordable housing for lower-income households, especially very low- income households and large families;

2. address cost increases in rental housing and an increasing need for rental assistance;

3. facilitate the continued construction of market-rate rental housing affordable to moderate- income households; and

4. seek new sources of funding for affordable housing.

Table 3-23 Median Value/Rent (1990 to 2011) 1990 to 2000 to 1990 to 2000 ACS ACS 2000 to 2011 Value/Rent 1990 2000 2000 Percent 2011 Margin 2011 Percent Change Change of Error Change Change Median 177,440 235,500 58,060 33% 492,200 +/-7,585 256,700 109% Home Value Median 485 696 211 44% 961 +/-9 265 38% Gross Rent Source: American Community 5-Year Survey 2007-2011 and U.S. Census 1990, 2000. Note: Margin of Error for American Community Survey 2007-2011 data represents the degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability. Also note: Comparing Census and American Community Survey is typically not recommended. This comparison was done per guidance from California Housing and Community Development Department, Housing Element Requisite Analysis.

Housing Prices for Owner-Occupied Housing

Oakland remains relatively affordable compared to other centrally located Bay Area communities. Housing prices in most Oakland neighborhoods are significantly lower than the median Bay Area housing price of $666,890 as reported by the California Association of Realtors in December 2013.16 In Table 3-24 below, the median home sales price in 2013 shows that Oakland continues to rank among the lowest in ownership cost compared to other Bay Area Cities. In recent years this relative affordability has caused median home sales prices to grow at the highest rate among a sample of Bay Area Cities. This illustrates that the regional demand for housing is impacting the City’s housing values—to the advantage of low-income homeowners but also to the disadvantage of the City’s low-and moderate-income population seeking to become home owners. Table 3-24 shows the median home sales price changes for some Bay Area cities for 2000, 2008, and 2013.

16 As per California Association of Realtors website: http://www.car.org/marketdata/data/countysalesactivity/

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 143 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-24 Selection of Bay Area Cities Median Home Sales Prices 2000, 200817 and 2013 Median Home Median Home Median Home Sales Percent Change in Sales Price Sales Price Price Price between 2000 2008 2013 2000 and 2013 Alameda $359,000 $625,000 $588,000 64% Albany $335,000 $500,000 $603,000 80% Berkeley $420,000 $735,000 $730,000 74% Castro Valley $356,500 $518,500 $534,500 50% Emeryville $191,000 $307,500 $350,000 83% Fremont $382,000 $564,000 $605,000 58% Hayward $255,000 $360,000 $360,000 41% Oakland $211,500 $401,000 $390,000 84% Redwood City $560,000 $800,000 $890,000 59% Richmond $160,000 $245,000 $210,000 31% San Francisco $485,000 $760,000 $830,000 71% San Jose $400,000 $560,000 $570,000 43% San Leandro $265,000 $391,000 $380,000 43% San Mateo $517,000 $710,000 $735,000 42% Santa Clara $425,000 $589,000 $635,000 49% Sunnyvale $510,000 $716,250 $765,000 50% Source: DataQuick

According to DataQuick, median home sales price data obtained by the City show that in the past thirteen years housing prices in Oakland increased on average 84%. Expanding the time range to twenty five years from 1988 to 2013, there is a dramatic increase in median home prices—an average increase of 207%. Figure 3-13 charts the Oakland median sales price trends over a 25 year period (Note that prices are not adjusted to current year values which skews the real values over time. This is done with the understanding that people do not do these adjustments when considering historical data.).

17 This is data is from the previous Housing Element and only covers January – July 2008—what was available at the time that report was written.

144 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Figure 3-13 Oakland Median Home Sales Prices 1988 to 2013

Oakland Median Sales Prices

$600,000

$500,000

$400,000

$300,000

$200,000

$100,000

$0

Source: DataQuick

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 145 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Focusing on Oakland neighborhoods, the following Table 3-25 shows variations in house sales prices by Oakland zip codes and price changes over time. The table illustrates the magnitude of price variation between zip codes. For example, the 2013 median sales prices has a high of $840,000 in zip code 94618 and a low of $153,000 in zip code 94621 (i.e. almost a fifth of the price). This table also illustrates the progressive increase in median home sales prices over time with recent 13 year price increases between 17 and 224%.

Table 3-25 Median Home Sales Prices by Zip Code Oakland (Selected Years, 1990-2013)

% % % Change Change Change Zip Code 1990 2000 2013 1990 - 1990 - 2000 - 2000 2013 2013 94601 $124,000 $160,000 29% $240,000 94% 50% 94602 $210,000 $325,000 55% $560,000 167% 72% 94603 $88,000 $142,250 62% $172,250 96% 21% 94605 $130,000 $194,000 49% $300,000 131% 55% 94606 $130,000 $170,000 31% $309,000 138% 82% 94607 $94,500 $160,000 69% $320,000 239% 100% 94609 $165,000 $280,000 70% $559,000 239% 100% 94610 $142,500 $266,500 87% $580,000 307% 118% 94611 $270,000 $465,000 72% $730,000 170% 57% 94612 $109,000 $139,000 28% $450,000 313% 224% 94618 $296,000 $520,000 76% $840,000 184% 62% 94619 $170,000 $260,000 53% $425,100 150% 64% 94621 $83,500 $130,500 56% $153,000 83% 17% Average of Median Sales $154,808 $247,096 57% $433,719 178% 78% Prices per Zip Code Source: DataQuick

Overall, since 2000, home sales prices have increased for all neighborhoods in Oakland. From about 2008 to just recently, the financial crisis and resultant foreclosure crisis significantly impacted median home sales prices in all neighborhoods. The collapse in home sales prices during that period was due to the flood of housing inventory, the tightening of the credit market, and the further decline of already struggling communities due to predatory lending practices (and resulting foreclosures) and job loss. In an analysis obtained by the City of Oakland, the first quarter of 2008 had the lowest home sales volume since 2000. By 2009 the home sales volume increased significantly but did not result in an increase in median sales prices.18 In 2007 and 2008, in all but one zip code (94618), median home sale prices experienced dramatic decreases. In five (out of thirteen) zip code areas; the one-year decrease from 2007 to 2008 was greater than one third. Figure 3-13 illustrates these market

18 City of Oakland Home Sales History (1/1/2000 to 3/31/2010), HdL Coren & Cone; Data Source: Alameda County DataQuick Property Data

146 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

price fluctuations using Oakland’s citywide median home sales price. According to DataQuick, as of 2013, median sales prices by zip code area ranged from $153,000 to $840,000. With the exception of five (out of thirteen) zip code areas (94602, 94609, 94610, 94611, 94618) in Oakland with moderately to significantly higher prices, the median cost of housing in Oakland is lower than most other East Bay cities. The highest cost communities in the immediate region were Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Castro Valley, Fremont, Redwood City, San Francisco, San Jose, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale. The lowest cost communities were Emeryville, Hayward, Oakland, Richmond and San Leandro. “Low cost” in the context of other East Bay cities means median home prices ranging from $210,000 to $390,000. It is not clear if the lower-cost units are in standard condition. Additionally, some low cost units are likely to be found in neighborhoods in at least two of these cities (Oakland and Richmond) that have been greatly impacted by the concentration of foreclosed properties and in some cases neglect and abandonment of foreclosed properties.

Ownership Affordability

Given Oakland’s relative affordability compared to other Bay Area cities, homeownership is difficult for moderate-income households and all but impossible for lower-income households. Ownership remains difficult as housing costs have increased to levels that are well beyond what annual salaries for many of the jobs located in the East Bay region will support. A household can typically qualify to purchase a home that is three times its annual gross income, depending on the down payment, the level of other long-term obligations (such as a car loan), and interest rates. In practice, the interaction of these factors allows some households to qualify for homes priced at more than three times their annual income, while other households may be limited to purchasing homes less than three times their annual income. For a quick, back-of-the-envelope calculation, a median income renter household earning approximately $80,00019 would be able to purchase a home valued at $240,000 to $266,500 under customary lending assumptions. According to DataQuick market sales data through 2013, there are only three zip codes in Oakland where homes can be purchased in this price range (see Table 3-25).

Another way to look at housing affordability is by occupations available in the immediate area. According to the California State Department of Labor (DOL) statistics for the Oakland-Fremont- Hayward metropolitan division, the average annual wage paid for the highest number of population employed in this area is $43,231. Table 3-26 gives a breakdown of those DOL top five occupation categories and their respective mean annual wage.

Table 3-26 Top 5 Occupations of Population Employed & Mean Annual Wages Oakland-Fremont-Hayward Metro Division (First Quarter 2013) March 2013- 2013 % of March 2013 population Total Mean Annual employed Population Wage Office and Administrative Support Occupations 159,950 16.5% $43,231 Sales and Related Occupations 98,230 10.1% $45,801 Food Preparation and Serving Related 79,330 8.2% $22,940 Occupations Education, Training, and Library Occupations 62,120 6.4% $61,125 Management Occupations 61,270 6.3% $128,829 Source: California Department of Labor Statistics.

19 Per City of Oakland2013 Income Limits for of moderate income household of 3 persons.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 147 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Next, Table 3-27 shows the Median Home Sales Prices for 2013 and the annual income required paying the principle and interest on a loan for those home prices. Assumptions for this table are as follows: 20% down payment, 4.75% interest rate for a 30 year fixed mortgage, one-third of income toward principle and interest payments. This calculation does not factor payment of taxes and insurance. Note that in many cases for low income homebuyers (according to 2013 HUD income limits, the annual salaries of 3 of the top 5 occupations represents more than 2/3 of population of persons employed in the area in Table 3-26 above) a 20% down payment would be very difficult to save. For the largest population of those working in the Oakland-Fremont-Hayward region (Office and Administrative Support Occupations), again, only three of the zip codes are affordable to those workers.

Table 3-27 Median Home Sales Prices 2013 and Income Required for Mortgage Principal & Interest

Median Home Monthly Yearly Income Zip Code Sales Price Payment Required (2013)

94601 $240,000 $1,002 $36,420 94602 $560,000 $2,337 $84,981 94603 $172,250 $719 $26,139 94605 $300,000 $1,252 $45,526 94606 $309,000 $1,290 $46,891 94607 $320,000 $1,335 $48,561 94609 $559,000 $2,333 $84,829 94610 $580,000 $2,420 $88,016 94611 $730,000 $3,046 $110,779 94612 $450,000 $1,878 $68,288 94618 $840,000 $3,505 $124,472 94619 $425,100 $1,774 $64,510 94621 $153,000 $638 $23,218 Source: DataQuick Notes: Loan assumptions: 20% down payment, 4.75% interest rate for a 30 year fixed mortgage, one- third of income toward principle and interest payments. Other costs that should be considered when considering purchasing a home include property taxes and insurance.

Oakland’s relative affordability given other Bay Area Cities and its central location—especially its proximity to downtown San Francisco connected by the regional commuter BART train—creates demand pressures that are increasing housing costs. These housing cost increases have the potential to impact rents and in general decrease housing affordability for low- and moderate-income households. If home sales prices continue to increase, homeownership for low- and moderate-income households will be all but impossible except under privately sponsored, state, or federal programs targeted to this income group. Financial assistance for low- and moderate-income homeownership is extremely limited under most targeted programs. As a result, expansion of the rental housing stock for households earning less than the median income may be a necessity.

148 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Rental Costs

Rental costs are usually evaluated based on two factors: rents paid by existing occupants of rental units and advertised rents for vacant units. When the housing market is tight, rents increase rapidly. Under these conditions, advertised rents for vacant units are often significantly higher than rents paid by existing tenants. The difference between rents for occupied units versus vacant units is magnified by the presence of rent control in Oakland. Property owners typically increase rents to market levels when they become vacant, creating a large gap between rents for occupied and vacant units.

Rental costs are often evaluated based on the “gross rent” paid by tenants, which includes utility payments, versus the contract rent for the dwelling units only. According to HUD, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data based on the American Community Service 5-year data from 2006-2010 (ACS 5-year data for 2010), the percentage of renter households paying more than 30 percent of income for housing increased from what was reported in the last housing element (approximately 40 percent) to 50% of renter households. Market rent increases seem to have had a disproportionate effect on very low-income renter households (those earning less than 50 percent of the countywide median income). Nearly 78 percent of these renter households paid more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing expenses according to the ACS 5-year data for 2010.

Following are findings from a 2012 Rent Survey conducted by City of Oakland. This section gives an overview of advertised rents and rental trends in Oakland.

Advertised Rents

The City of Oakland has tracked rental housing cost information in the City since 1980 through an annual rent survey. During the 1980’s and 1990’s, the City was able to get consistent data from available print and rental housing advertising agencies. In 2008, given the demise of these local print sources, the methodology of the annual rental survey changed. City staff began to collect data for the annual rental survey every year on July 15th from listings of vacant apartment units advertised online at Craigslist.org. This data is compiled by number of bedrooms and geographic area within Oakland. The geographic areas include: Downtown, East Oakland, Oakland Hills/Mills, Lake Merritt/Grand, North Oakland/Temescal, Piedmont/Montclair, Rockridge and West Oakland. The City’s survey measures increases in rents on vacant units; tenants in place are not necessarily experiencing rent increases of this magnitude, particularly because Oakland’s Residential Rent Adjustment Ordinance, which limits rent increases to much lower rates (rent increases are set each year). There are limitations to this data in that there is no way to filter out duplicate listings. This limitation could potentially increase rental rate average estimates.

In 2012, Citywide median rent data remained relatively flat or experienced only slight changes over 2011; studios and three-bedroom units remained flat, one-bedroom units experienced a slight increase, and two-bedroom units experienced a slight decrease. Notable with Citywide median rents in all unit types is, with a few exceptions, most all have recovered to well above relatively high 2008 median rent levels.

2012 Citywide data on rents hide some variation among neighborhoods:

• For studios, the median rent had no change over 2011, but had more dramatic increases in some neighborhoods: Downtown with a 37% increase, Lake Merritt/Grand Avenue neighborhood with a 14% increase, and Piedmont/Montclair with a 19% increase. The remaining neighborhoods had insignificant decreases or single digit percentage increases with the exception of East Oakland that experienced a 15% decrease in median rents for studios.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 149 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

• For one-bedroom units, the median rent increased by 4% citywide over 2011, and had dramatic increases in three neighborhoods: Downtown with a 36% increase, North Oakland/Temescal with a 19% increase, and Rockridge with a 15% increase. All other areas of the city had single digit percentage increases over 2011 rents except for the Hills/Mills neighborhood, which saw a 9% decrease in rents. • For two-bedroom units, median rent had a slight decrease of 3% citywide. Although there was a slight decrease in median rents citywide, half of the surveyed neighborhoods had dramatic increases: Downtown with a 25% increase, East Oakland with a 12% increase, Lake Merritt/Grand Avenue with an 11% increase and Piedmont/Montclair with a 15% increase. Two of the surveyed neighborhoods had dramatic decreases in median rents that might explain the decrease in citywide median: Rockridge had an 11% decrease and West Oakland had a 15% decrease in median rents. This might be attributable to a market adjustment over 2011’s dramatic increases in rents for both these same neighborhoods. • For three-bedroom units, the median rent decreased 3% citywide. What is notable in this category of units is that the Rockridge neighborhood experienced a significant increase in median rents, an increase of 72%.

Table 3-28 shows Estimated Citywide Median Advertised Rents in Oakland 2008- to 2012.

Table 3-28 Estimated Citywide Median Advertised Rents Oakland 2008 to 2012 Studio 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom Median 1-year Median 1-year Median 1-year Median 1-year Year Rent Change Rent Change Rent Change Rent Change 2008 $800 - $1,150 - $1,500 - $1,968 - 2009 $825 3% $1,030 -10% $1,425 -5% $1,750 -11% 2010 $795 -4% $1,050 2% $1,395 -2% $1,725 -1% 2011 $850 7% $1,025 -2% $1,395 0% $1,798 4% 2012 $850 0% $1,095 7% $1,350 -3% $1,750 -3%

After large increases in the number of studio, one-, two- and three-bedroom units listed from 2008 to 2009, in 2010 the number of listings for available units declined and continued to decline in 2011 and 2012. Notable is that in 2012 the count of listings for studios and one bedrooms fell well below the listing count of 2008—the year that the City started conducting the Craigslist analysis. These decreases in unit availability may explain continued increases in rents.

150 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-29 Number of Listings for Rental Units, 2008-2012 Studio One-Bdrm Two-Bdrm Three-Bdrm Total 0-3 Bdrm # of % # of % # of % # of % # of % Year Listings Change Listings Change Listings Change Listings Change Listings Change 2008 121 - 381 - 350 - 154 - 1,006 - 2009 261 116% 742 95% 578 65% 249 62% 1,830 82% 2010 168 -36% 728 -2% 555 -4% 190 -24% 1,641 -10% 2011 165 -2% 466 -36% 421 -24% 198 4% 1,250 -24% 2012 89 -46% 244 -48% 372 -12% 159 -20% 864 -31%

The citywide decrease in number of listings hides variation across neighborhoods. There was an increase in listings in only one neighborhood for all units (0-3 bedroom): East Oakland’s number of rental listings increased by 3% from 2011 to 2012. In all but one of the remaining neighborhoods there were significant double digit decreases in rental listings: Downtown (-34%), Lake Merritt/Grand Avenue (-54%), North Oakland/Temescal (-38%), Piedmont/Montclair (-42%), Rockridge (-58%), and West Oakland (-51%).

As reported in Oakland’s last Housing Element, rent levels and increases during the 1990 and 2000s have varied among Oakland’s neighborhoods. North Oakland, Montclair, areas above MacArthur Boulevard, and Lake Merritt experienced the largest increases in median rents. Areas below MacArthur have the lowest rents. According to Craigslist data, the same locational trends occur in rents with the exception of the Downtown neighborhood. Since 2004, Downtown Oakland median advertised rents have experienced a dramatic increase compared to other neighborhoods.

The annual rental survey was not completed in 2013. Recent anecdotal evidence indicates that market rents have increased in Oakland according to an article in the San Francisco Chronicle20 and based on data from RealFacts (a company that aggregates market rental data nationally). It is reported that the average rental rates for Oakland increased 10.3% from 2012 to 2013 to an average of $2,124 (the type of unit was not noted in the article though it is assumed that it is an average of all types of units). RealFacts.com data is limited to a very specific market area that may not tell the story for what is happening in the entire City. Regardless, it is an indicator of an alarming trend of increased rental costs21.

Because household income increases have not kept pace with advertised rent increases, rental affordability continues to be a major problem for many of Oakland’s renters.

20 Said, Carolyn, “Rents Soaring Across Region,” San Francisco Chronicle, October 25, 2013. 21 RealFacts data is based on 19 market rate buildings with 50 or more units located in the following zip codes: 94606, 94607, 94609, 94610, and 94612.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 151 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Gross Rents

According to the 2000 Census, the median gross rent22 in Oakland for all rental occupied rental units was $696, compared to $852 countywide (see Table 3-30). The Census bureau measures rents as reported by existing occupants of all rental units (including subsidized rental units) (Table 3-30 and Table 3-31), in contrast to advertised rents for rental units shown in Table 3-28. Existing residents typically pay lower rents, on average, than new occupants of rental units, particularly because of rent control. According to the ACS 5-year data for 2011 median gross rent for Oakland increased to $1,042, compared to $1,228 countywide. Comparing 2000 (Table 3-30) and 2011 (Table 3-31) gross rents data, there are distinct changes of percentage of units by gross rent range—data skews to the higher gross rents in the most recent data, again, indicating the general increase in gross rents being paid by Oakland renter residents.

Table 3-30 Gross Rents for Occupied Housing Units (2000)

Percent of Units Percent of Units Gross Rent Oakland Alameda County Less than $200 5% 3% $200 - $299 5% 3% $300 - $499 13% 8% $500 - $749 35% 25% $750 - $999 24% 26% $1,000 - $1,499 13% 25% $1,500 or more 5% 9% No Cash Rent 2% 2% Median Rent $696 $852 Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 Note: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

22 “Gross Rent”, as defined by U.S. Census Bureau, is the amount of the contract rent plus the estimated average monthly cost of utilities (electricity, gas, and water and sewer) and fuels (oil, coal, kerosene, wood, etc.) if these are paid for by the renter (or paid for the renter by someone else). Gross rent is intended to eliminate differentials which result from varying practices with respect to the inclusion of utilities and fuels as part of the rental payment.

152 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-31 Gross Rents for Occupied Housing Units (2011)

Percent of Units Percent of Units Gross Rent Oakland Alameda County Less than $200 1% 1% $200 - $299 5% 3% $300 - $499 5% 3% $500 - $749 10% 6% $750 - $999 24% 17% $1,000 - $1,499 33% 37% $1,500 or more 19% 30% No Cash Rent 3% 3% Median Rent $1,042 $1,228 Source: American Community Service 5-Year Survey 2007-2011

Fair Market Rent

Oakland rental rates can be compared to a measure of rental housing cost used by the federal government in the administration of rental housing assistance programs for very low- and low-income households. This measure is called the “Fair Market Rent”23 and establishes the payment standard by which public housing authorities determine the amount they will pay to property owners on behalf of low-income tenants. Based on these rents, it is clear that very low-income households (those earning less than 50 percent of the area median income) are unable to afford even a modest priced rental unit without devoting more than 30 percent of their limited incomes to housing costs. Persons earning minimum wage, or even Oakland’s Living Wage, make far less than what is required to afford unsubsidized housing.

Median advertised rental rates in many parts of Oakland in 2012 (with the exceptions of East and West Oakland) were equivalent or exceeded the 2012 Fair Market Rents. This could make it difficult for low-income households with federal rental assistance vouchers to locate rental housing. Table 3- 32 below shows HUD Fair Market Rents over the past twelve years.

23 “Fair Market Rents” are gross rent estimates that include shelter rent plus the cost of all utilities, except telephones. Fair market rents are expressed as a percentile point within the rent distribution of standard-quality rental housing units. The current definition for Oakland uses the 50th percentile rent, the dollar amount below which 50 percent of the standard- quality rental housing units are rented. The 50th percentile rent is drawn from the distribution of rents of all units occupied by recent movers (renter households who moved to their present residence within the past 15 months). Public housing units and units less than two years old are excluded from the calculation.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 153 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-32 2002-2013 HUD Fair Market Rents HUD Fair Market Rents Studio 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 2002 $ 819 $ 991 $ 1,243 $ 1,704 2003 $ 905 $ 1,095 $ 1,374 $ 1,883 2004 $ 936 $ 1,132 $ 1,420 $ 1,947 2005 $ 936 $ 1,132 $ 1,420 $ 1,947 2006 $ 865 $ 1,045 $ 1,238 $ 1,679 2007 $ 874 $ 1,055 $ 1,250 $ 1,695 2008 $ 866 $ 1,046 $ 1,239 $ 1,680 2009 $ 905 $ 1,093 $ 1,295 $ 1,756 2010 $ 963 $ 1,162 $ 1,377 $ 1,867 2011 $ 974 $ 1,176 $ 1,393 $ 1,889 2012 $ 980 $ 1,183 $ 1,402 $ 1,901 201324 $ 892 $ 1,082 $ 1,361 $ 1,901

Table 3-33 examines the affordability of the Fair Market Rents and 2012 median advertised rent and shows the annual income required to pay for those rents. It also shows the number of hours needed to afford these rents for a hypothetical household earning Oakland’s Living Wage, and the California and the Federal minimum wages. Only a couple earning Oakland’s Living Wage and sharing a one- bedroom could afford a median priced apartment in Oakland without working more than 40 hours a week. Wages that are needed to afford housing in Oakland need to be substantially higher than the minimum wage or Oakland’s Living Wage to afford rents in Oakland.

Table 3-33 2012 Fair Market Rents and Weekly Work Hours Required to Afford a Market-Priced Rental Unit Oakland Living CA State Minimum Federal Minimum 2012 Wages & Median Wage25 Wage Wage Rents $11.70 $8.00 $7.25 Unit Size 1 BR apt 2 BR apt 1 BR apt 2 BR apt 1 BR apt 2 BR apt HUD Fair Market Rents26 $1,093 $1,295 $1,093 $1,295 $1,093 $1,295 Median Advertised Rents $1,095 $1,395 $1,095 $1,395 $1,095 $1,395 Hours required, 1 wage- earner27 72 92 105 134 116 148 Hours required by each wage earner in 2 person household28 36 46 53 67 58 74 Sources: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and City of Oakland, July 2012.

24 Note that this amount dropped from 2012 to 2013 with significant implications for ongoing affordable rental cash flows for properties currently regulated by the City of Oakland. 25 Oakland’s Living Wage with benefits as of July 1, 2012. 26 50th percentile fair market rents. 27 Based on a 40-hour work week, 52 weeks per year. 28 Ibid

154 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Availability of Subsidized Housing

Another measure of the need for financial assistance in rental housing affordability is the number of lower-income households seeking rental housing assistance in relation to available assistance. There are two types of rental housing assistance available to needy renters: 1) rent restricted housing units in projects assisted with public funds, and 2) rental housing vouchers that pay property owners the difference between what a renter can afford and a payment standard based on the fair market rent. Some assisted rental housing projects also have vouchers allocated to those projects.

The Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) is responsible for the operation, management, maintenance, and third-party management of 1,605 public housing units. OHA also provides contracted property management services to 1,554 project based vouchers units in the Oakland Affordable Housing Preservation Initiative (OAHPI) portfolio, which consists of former public housing scattered site units that are now under a 30-year lease agreement with OAHPI (see Figure 3-14 and Figure 3-15). Additionally, OHA operates the Section 8 Rental Assistance Program (rental housing vouchers) for almost 13,700 households, and administers the Shelter Plus Care Program for Alameda County. All of these programs serve very low- and extremely low-income persons, and the Housing Authority programs are the principal programs available to meet the needs of persons with incomes below 30 percent of median income. The average wait list time (i.e. the period between when a household gets on a housing wait list until they are offered a housing unit) for OHA’s programs varies. OHA opens its waitlist periodically, and lotterizes the pre-applicants down to a shorter, more manageable list. This is done to alleviate wait times that could exceed a decade for applicants, in an effort to more closely link the opening of a wait list to a possible offer of housing for the applicant. According to OHA, in early 2014 all of their waitlists were closed, with very few new families served due to severe funding cuts and the Federal sequestration. According to their Making Transitions Work (MTW) FY 2015 annual plan, OHA plans to open some site-based wait lists for some of their public housing and project based voucher sites in the years 2015-16. The current wait list length for all of their programs are listed in Table 3-34.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 155 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Figure 3-14 Oakland Affordable Housing Preservation Initiative North, West, and Downtown 2014

156 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Figure 3-15 Oakland Affordable Housing Preservation Initiative East Oakland, 2014

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 157 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-34 Oakland Housing Authority Housing Program Wait List Summary As of March 2014

Wait List Plans to # of Open, open Wait list Average OHA Wait Housing Program Households Partially wait list last Time on List Type on Wait List Open, or in FY 14- opened? Wait List Closed 15?

MTW Housing Choice Community 9,345 Closed No Jan 2011 5-7 years Voucher Wide MTW Public Housing 891 Closed Yes Sept 2012 1-3 years (OHA managed) Site Based No (List open for Lion MTW Public Housing Site Based 3,690 Closed Creek varies varies (Third-party managed) Crossings 3BR units) Project-based Voucher 6-12 Site Based Closed Yes Sept 2012 (OAHPI) 3,821 months

Source: Oakland Housing Authority, March 2014.

OHA reports that the average wait time for entry to a public housing development is between one to three years, however this time is expected to grow significantly due to historically low funding levels for the near term. The average wait time for receipt of a rental housing voucher is between five and seven years. Public housing wait list times have decreased since the last report, but may increase again once all available units are leased.

The waiting list for privately owned and managed assisted rental housing also increased since it was reported in the last Housing Element. City staff received responses to a phone survey from 34 privately owned and managed assisted rental housing developments (out of a total of 180 properties in the City’s database). Only 17 of surveyed housing developments were accepting applications for housing. Of the housing developments survey, the average wait list length was 103 households. The average wait time for these units was about 18 months.

During the last Housing Element period it was thought that the need for additional affordable rental housing was likely to be mitigated in the short term by the high number of market rate housing developed in the early 2000s. In general, when there are increases in the supply and quality of rental units, it is likely to result in a decrease in rental costs. This trend can be seen in market rental data in Table 3-29 in 2009 and 2010. Subsequent years of this market rental data and anecdotal evidence does not indicate any continuance of decreasing cost trends. Additionally, for much of the last housing element planning period (2007-2014) housing starts stalled markedly. An illustration of this comes from data on building permits issued—there were three months in 2011 that had no building permits issued (the only year out of the last ten years that it has been tracked in the City). In addition, the foreclosure crisis and subsequent economic and housing crisis resulted in many homeowners

158 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

losing their homes and likely moving into the rental housing market. All of these factors combined point to potential need for affordable housing as competition for housing increases market rents. City housing staff will monitor rental unit supply and costs to determine if this will in fact be the case in Oakland.

Financing Gap for Rental Housing

With land and construction costs increasing rapidly in today’s market, the cost of developing new apartments is approximately $509,000 per unit according to recent City-assisted housing development statistics (2013-14). These costs cannot be recovered without rents high enough to support a substantial mortgage. As a result, little unsubsidized rental housing was under construction, until recently, especially outside the downtown area. Another way to look at this is to examine the gap between the mortgage that can be supported with affordable rents and the cost of development.

Such an analysis would yield the following for a hypothetical 60-unit building with rents at $1,361/month (Fair Market Rent for a two-bedroom unit) and $1,052/month (the maximum affordable rent for a three-person very low-income household), operating costs at $5,000/unit per year, and interest rates of 6.5 percent:

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 159 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Sample Analysis of Rental Housing Development Cost:

With Average Unit Rent of $1,361/month (2013 Fair Market Rent for a 2-bedroom unit) Gross Rents (annual): $979,920 (less vacancy/collection loss at 3 percent): $(29,398) Effective Gross Income: $950,522 (less operating expenses): $(300,000) Net Operating Income: $650,522 Amount Available for Debt Service (1.10 debt coverage ratio): $591,384 Development Cost ($509,000/unit): $30,540,000 Less Initial Equity Investment (10 percent): $3,054,000 Net Amount to Finance: $27,486,000 Maximum Mortgage (at 6.5 percent, 30-year amortization): $7,796,946 Financing Gap: $19,689,054 Financial Gap Per Unit: $328,151

With Average Unit Rent of $1,052/month (2013 Federal HOME Low Rent29) Gross Rents (annual): $757,440 (less vacancy/collection loss at 3 percent): $(22,723) Effective Gross Income: $734,717 (less operating expenses): $(300,000) Net Operating Income: $434,717 Amount Available for Debt Service (1.10 debt coverage ratio): $395,197 Development Cost ($509,000/unit): $30,540,000 Less Initial Equity Investment (10 percent): $3,054,000 Net Amount to Finance: $27,486,000 Maximum Mortgage (at 6.5 percent, 30-year amortization): $5,210,371 Financing Gap: $22,275,629 Financial Gap Per Unit: $371,260

This simplified exercise demonstrates clearly that a substantial financing gap exists between the debt that can be supported by a housing development at fair market rent, and the actual cost of development. For these units to be affordable to very low-income tenants, a significant monthly rental subsidy, about $2,000 to about $2,350 per dwelling unit, or an even greater capital subsidy, will be needed in addition to the financial assistance to the developer.

E. FORECLOSURES

The trend in subprime lending practices taking place from approximately 2005 to 2007 has significantly impacted the City of Oakland. These high-risk mortgage loans including adjustable rates and balloon payments led to large numbers of homeowners who lost or who were (or continue to be) in danger of losing their homes to foreclosure. The City of Oakland continues to track the number of houses that are in foreclosure by monitoring properties that are in default (NOD), that have a trustee sale scheduled (NTS), or that are bank-owned (REO). Although foreclosure numbers have decreased significantly, there are still large repercussions of the foreclosure crisis that the City and other non-profit legal aid organizations continue to grapple with. As reported in the last Housing Element, staff acquired data on properties that had an adjustable rate loans scheduled to reset in 2008-

29 30% of 50% of Area Median Income of $40,150 for a 3 person household, 2 bedroom unit

160 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

10 and that has 90% to 200% combined loan-to-value ratio. As of November 200830, this data show that there are close to 7,365 properties that would have loan adjustments from 2008-2010. Of those properties, 3,655 (50%) loans adjusted before the end of 2008; 6,303 (85%) loans adjusted between December 2008 and November 2009. This data aligns pretty closely to the actual numbers of foreclosures that happened during that period as is illustrated in Table 3-35.

Between 2006 and 2012, approximately 11,000 of Oakland’s residential properties have been foreclosed (REO recorded on property title)—transferred back to the primary mortgage lender due to unresolved payment defaults. This represents approximately 6.5 percent of Oakland’s residential housing units. In the same time period close to 18,000 residential properties in Oakland were in some stage of the foreclosure process as evidenced by a recorded NOD. NODs are properties that have a recorded default from a bank indicating that the property is in crisis. Any lender that has a loan secured by the property may file an NOD and depending on debt secured by the property there can be multiple NODs per property. The City of Oakland data shown in Table 3-35 and Figure 3-16 is consolidated and represents only one NOD per address. Additionally, the evolution of the foreclosure crisis tells the story of the resulting economic instability for Oakland residents:

Another significant shift in conditions from the early years of the crisis is the length of ownership prior to foreclosure. In the first few years of turnover (during the foreclosure crisis), most properties lost to auction had been owned for less than two years and over 80 percent of properties had been owned for less than six years. Five years later this trend had reversed: more than 88 percent of homes sold at auction in 2012 had been owned for six years or more and 36 percent had been owned for more than ten years. Overall, almost one in five Oakland properties lost since the crisis began had been owned for more than 10 years.31

30 Adjustable Rate Loan Rider data for the City of Oakland acquired from First American Core Logic. This data consists of first mortgage loans that will have at least one adjustment between November 2008 and November 2010 and that have a combined loan to value ratio of >90%. These data include loans on the following types of properties: condominiums, duplexes, multi-family, PUDs, four plexes, single family residential, townhomes and triplexes. The adjustable rate loans that are counted in this data include: subprime, interest only, term and option. Data does not include negative or partial amortization loans. 31 Casey, Jean, “Oakland in the Wake of the Foreclosure Crisis: Impacts and Indicators in Pursuit of Neighborhood Stabilization” (a planning report presented to the faculty of the Department of Urban Planning and Regional Development, San Jose State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Urban Development, May 2013).

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 161 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-35 Residential Notices of Default Recorded on Oakland Properties 2006 to 2012 Percent of Percent of Notices of NODs with NODs with final Total Units Lost Year 32 Default Other outcome as to Foreclosure Outcomes33 Foreclosure 2006 1,446 26% 74% 1,074 2007 2,247 18% 82% 1,842 2008 3,706 23% 77% 2,844 2009 3,142 25% 75% 2,360 2010 2,810 49% 51% 1,445 2011 2,263 57% 43% 984 2012 1,440 78% 22% 314 2013 751 Data Not Available Data Not Available Data Not Available Total Units with a Default Recorded Total Units Lost between to Foreclosure 2006-2013: 17,805 2006-12: 10,863 Source: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development using data from Foreclosure Radar, 2013

32 This figure reflects unduplicated addresses of all NOD filings. 33 Other outcomes of Notices of Default recorded could be (1)The owner sells the property to a third party. If that property has a market value/sale price below what is currently owed, it is called a "short sale" and is subject to approval by the lender. (2) The owner holds on to the property and brings the mortgage current or obtains a loan modification by the lender.

162 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Figure 3-16 Distribution of Residential NOD Filings by Property Type, City of Oakland 2006 to 2012

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000 OTHER 1,500 5+Units Condominium 1,000 2-4 Unit 500 Single Family Residence

- 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 OTHER 5 3 6 12 10 9 11 6 5+Units 14 27 50 42 49 37 16 11 Condominium 88 150 250 406 386 369 235 81 2-4 Unit 263 393 596 502 461 359 184 91 Single Family Residence 1,076 1,674 2,804 2,180 1,904 1,489 994 562

Source: Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development using data from Foreclosure Radar, 2013

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 163 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023 F. HOUSEHOLDS OVERPAYING FOR HOUSING

A standard measure of housing affordability is that housing expenses (including utilities) should not exceed 30 percent of a household’s gross (before tax) income. This is the accepted measure of affordability for state and federal housing programs.

For both 1990 and 2000, HUD provided special tabulations of Census data that measure the incidence of overpayment problems by income category, based on both household income and household size called Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data. For CHAS 2010 data, which is based on the American Community 5-Year Survey, HUD has created a series of data sets which are grouped by themes. Each of the data sets quantifies the numbers of households that contain HUD- specified characteristics, such as prevalence of housing problems, degree of housing cost burden and income in HUD-specified geographic areas.

Those who pay 30 percent or more of their income on housing may have trouble affording other necessities. These households are said to “overpay” for housing or have a high “housing cost burden.” Individual circumstances affecting a household’s ability to afford housing vary, such as other long-term debt payments, the number of household members, and other large ongoing expenses (such as medical bills). Since it is impossible to consider each household’s individual circumstances, the 30 percent rule provides a general measure of housing affordability for the average household.

Households who pay more than 50% are considered to have a “severe cost burden” and at extremely low and very low income levels, are considered to be “worst case needs” households who are at risk of becoming homeless. Extremely low-income renters who pay half or more their incomes for housing are at greatest risk of becoming homeless because of their precarious financial circumstances. Extremely low-income homeowners who pay half or more of their incomes for housing have the least ability to meet utility expenses and do not have sufficient incomes to borrow funds to maintain, repair or improve their homes.

Not surprisingly, overpayment problems are most pronounced for those with the lowest incomes. In 2010, more than three-fourths of extremely low income households paid more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing; 76 percent of households with incomes between 30 and 50 percent of median income paid over 30 percent of income for housing; and more than a half of households with incomes between 50 and 80 percent of median paid over 30 percent.

A similar pattern exists for extreme cost burden, but it falls off more quickly as incomes rise. Extreme cost burdens are experienced by nearly 65 percent of extremely low income households, 39 percent of households with incomes between 30 and 50 percent of median, and 18 percent of households with incomes between 50 and 80 percent of median.

These general patterns mask important differences between renters and owners. For renters, cost burden for households in the 50 to 80 percent of median income range are much lower than for owners with similar incomes. This difference is even more pronounced when comparing extreme cost burdens for renters and owners. It appears that for renters, beyond a certain income level, cost burdens fall quickly, but are replaced by much higher rates of other housing problems such as substandard conditions and overcrowding, suggesting that many renters, and particularly large families, resolve their affordability problems by living in inadequate housing rather than devoting larger portions of their income to housing that is standard quality and adequate for their household size. In addition, the figures on overpayment do not take into account tax benefits received by homeowners, and thus the overpayment rates for homeowners are somewhat overstated.

164 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

The general rate of overpayment increased significantly between 2000 and 2010, housing affordability improved for lower income renters but worsened for lower income owners. Production of new affordable housing and an increase in the number of Section 8 vouchers lessened cost burdens for lower income renters, while cost burdens for homeowners increased. Homeowner overpayment rates may have increased in part because of willingness by lenders to allow debt-to-income ratios higher than was true in the past. As reported in the last Housing Element, high-risk, sub-prime lending contributed a high percentage of households with >90% combined-loan-to-value-ratios (CLTV). According to First American Core Logic Adjustable Rate Loan-rider document data acquired by the City of Oakland34, there were 6,625 properties that had loans with a CLTV >100%; there were 381 that had loans with a CLTV >200%. These homeowners likely had loan payments that they could not afford and that were likely making payments on properties that were likely not worth the loans that they were paying. As noted in the prior section, the foreclosure crisis data illustrates the fallout from these types of liberal lending practices.

Table 3-36 compares the percentage of households paying more than 30 percent of their incomes on housing in 1990, 2000 and 2010, broken out by tenure and HUD-defined income levels.

Table 3-36 Households Paying Over 30 Percent for Housing Costs (1990, 2000 and 2010)

Renters Owners All Households Income Group 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 Extremely Low (under 30% MFI) 78% 74% 79% 64% 73% 77% 76% 74% 79% Very Low (30% to 50% MFI) 72% 60% 78% 43% 58% 72% 63% 60% 76% Low (50% to 80% MFI) 43% 24% 46% 35% 46% 63% 40% 31% 52% Moderate (up to 95% MFI) 1% n/a n/a 7% n/a n/a 4% n/a n/a Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: 1990, 2000 and 2010 CHAS Data Books, derived from 1990 and 2000 Census and American Community Survey 2006-2010 5 Year Average Data, respectively. Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding

Table 3-37 provides a similar comparison for households paying more than 50 of percent their income for housing.

34 Data are for loan adjustments that are due to occur between November 2008 and November 2010.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 165 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-37 Households Paying Over 50 Percent of Income for Housing Costs (1990, 2000 and 2010)

Renters Owners All Households Income Level 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010 Extremely Low Income (under 30% MFI) 61% 56% 66% 45% 60% 63% 58% 57% 65% Very Low-Income (31 to 50% MFI) 26% 16% 32% 23% 35% 54% 25% 21% 39% Low Income (51 to 80% MFI) 4% 3% 8% 12% 18% 38% 7% 8% 18% Moderate Income (81 to 95% MFI) 1% n/a n/a 7% n/a n/a 4% n/a n/a Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: 1990, 2000 and 2010 CHAS Data Books, derived from 1990 and 2000 Census and American Community Survey 2006-2010 5 Year Average Data, respectively.

Table 3-38 shows the number and percent of owners and renters by income who paid more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing in 2011. This table differs from the preceding tables because it does not take into account differences in household size, which are a factor in determining the HUD- defined income groups.

Table 3-38 Households Paying 30 Percent or More of Income for Housing (2011)

Renters Owners Income Number M.O.E1 Percent Number M.O.E1 Percent Less than $ 20,000 3,813 +/-360 81% 22,920 +/-1,075 86% $ 20,000 to $ 34,999 4,554 +/-453 70% 14,095 +/-828 84% $ 35,000 to $ 49,999 3,733 +/-426 65% 6,024 +/-555 49% $ 50,000 to $ 74,999 6,357 +/-601 63% 3,405 +/-438 24% $ 75,000 or more 11,926 +/-702 32% 839 +/-225 5% Source: American Community 5-Year Survey 2007-2011 1 M.O.E. (Margin of Error) for American Community Survey 2007-2010 data represents the degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Finally, Table 3-39 which summarizes HUD’s CHAS Dataset, provides detailed information on housing cost burdens and other housing problems, broken out by income level, tenure and household type and size. The high percentage of low-income households with high housing cost burdens means that Oakland will continue to experience a high demand for rental assistance, new low-cost rental housing, and home repair assistance.

166 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-39 Summary of Oakland Housing Assistance Needs Renter Households (HHs) by Owner Households (HHs) by All Type and Number of Persons Type and Number of Persons Households Small Large All Small Large All Elderly Total Elderly Total Total Household by Type, Income, & Housing Problem Related Related Other Related Related Other (1 & 2) Renters (1 & 2) Owners HHs (2 to 4) (5 or more) HHs (2 to 4) (5 or more) HHs 1. Very Low Income(Household Income <=50% HAMFI) 9,635 14,880 4,105 16,870 45,495 5,920 3,450 1,070 1,170 12,155 57,650 2. Household Income <=30% HAMFI 7,195 9,400 2,625 11,030 30,250 3,100 1,195 360 960 5,615 35,865 3. % with any housing problems 61.6% 89.3% 94.1% 81.6% 80.3% 72.9% 81.6% 97.2% 78.1% 77.2% 79.8% 4. % Cost Burden >30% 60.3% 88.8% 89.5% 80.0% 78.8% 72.4% 81.2% 95.8% 78.1% 76.7% 78.5% 8. % Cost Burden > 50% 40.9% 74.2% 75.8% 72.3% 65.7% 55.2% 68.2% 86.1% 75.5% 63.3% 65.4% 9. Household Income >30% to <=50% HAMFI 2,440 5,480 1,480 5,840 15,245 2,820 2,255 710 750 6,540 21,785 10. % with any housing problems 72.5% 84.7% 84.1% 85.8% 83.1% 59.8% 83.6% 99.3% 82.0% 74.8% 80.6% 11. % Cost Burden >30% 71.5% 79.5% 59.1% 83.2% 77.6% 59.0% 80.7% 88.7% 80.7% 72.3% 76.0% 12. % Cost Burden >50% 30.5% 29.6% 14.5% 39.0% 31.9% 41.8% 65.6% 57.7% 61.3% 54.1% 38.5% 13. Household Income >50 to <=80% HAMFI 1,655 5,445 1,025 7,235 15,355 2,625 2,805 1,280 1,400 8,110 23,465 14. % with any housing problems 48.0% 49.9% 79.0% 53.2% 53.2% 40.6% 70.9% 84.4% 82.9% 65.4% 57.4% 15. % Cost Burden >30% 46.5% 41.5% 30.2% 51.8% 46.2% 40.6% 70.2% 74.2% 81.4% 63.2% 52.1% 16. % Cost Burden >50% 10.3% 6.6% 0.0% 8.8% 7.6% 21.5% 44.7% 38.3% 53.9% 37.8% 18.0% 17. Household Income >80% HAMFI 2,870 8,655 1,080 15,765 28,370 9,350 21,990 2,950 11,085 45,380 73,750 18. % with any housing problems 20.6% 13.3% 74.1% 10.7% 14.9% 26.4% 36.4% 48.5% 49.8% 38.4% 29.3% 24. % Cost Burden >30% 14.4% 7.7% 4.2% 0.3% 8.8% 25.6% 35.1% 28.5% 49.8% 36.3% 25.7% 25. % Cost Burden >50% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 8.2% 9.3% 3.9% 16.5% 10.5% 6.5% 29. Total Households 14,160 28,980 6,210 39,870 89,220 17,895 28,245 5,300 14,195 65,645 154,865 30. % with any housing problems 53.6% 58.3% 85.7% 49.0% 55.3% 41.8% 45.5% 67.3% 56.6% 48.6% 52.5% Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data based on American Community Survey 2006-2010 5 year Average Data (Table 7, Table 1, Table 8 and Table 16) Notes: HUD’s data does not distinguish moderate income (80% - 120% of MFI) from above moderate income (greater than 120% of MFI). Cost Burden refers to percentage of income devoted to housing. Housing Problems includes high cost burden (>30% of income), overcrowding (>1.01 persons per room) and/or lack of complete kitchen or bathroom facilities. Because this is a very minimal definition of physical/structural problems, the number of persons in substandard housing (major health and safety risks) is greater than reflected here. HAMFI refers to HUD Area Median Family Income. This is the median family income calculated by HUD for each jurisdiction, in order to determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits for HUD programs.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 167 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

G. OVERCROWDING

Overcrowding is a measure of the capacity of the housing stock to adequately accommodate residents. Too many individuals living in a housing unit with inadequate space and number of rooms can result in unhealthy living arrangements and accelerated deterioration of the housing stock. In the United States, housing providers and government agencies typically consider a household as overcrowded if there is more than one person per room or two persons per bedroom. Extreme overcrowding is often defined as more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding results when: 1) the cost of available housing with a sufficient number of bedrooms for larger families exceeds the family’s ability to afford such housing; 2) unrelated individuals (such as students or low-wage single adult workers) share dwelling units due to high housing costs; 3) the cost of housing requires two families to double up; or 4) housing costs force extended family members to become part of the household.

Overcrowding increased significantly between 1990 and 2000. Nearly 12 percent of the City’s households lived in overcrowded conditions in 1990, increasing to 16 percent in 2000. Countywide, about four percent of households lived in overcrowded conditions, increasing to 12 percent in 2000. Ten percent of Oakland households lived in severely overcrowded conditions in 2000 (more than 1.5 persons per room), compared to seven percent countywide. Table 3-40 summarizes overcrowding in 2000.

Renter households typically have a higher rate of overcrowding than homeowners. Nearly 16 percent of renters lived in overcrowded conditions in 1990, while more than nine percent lived in extremely overcrowded conditions. By 2000, 20 percent of renters lived in overcrowded conditions. Extremely low-, very low- and low-income renter households, and low-, moderate-, and above moderate (>120 AMI) - income owners all experienced high levels of overcrowding.

By comparison, six percent of homeowners lived in overcrowded conditions in 1990, about half of which were severely overcrowded. The rate of overcrowding increased to ten percent by 2000, according to the Census Bureau.

Overcrowding is closely associated with income. As reported earlier, younger households and non-White households have significantly lower incomes than older households and White, non-Hispanic households. The 2000 Census reported that overcrowding was highest among households age 34 or less, Hispanic households, and non-White households. Conversely, overcrowding was significantly lower among non- Hispanic White households and older households (those with householders 55 years of age or more).

The increases in overcrowding are very likely due to a combination of two factors - rapidly rising housing costs during the 1990s, and an increase in the number of lower-income large families (including a substantial number of immigrant families). Large families frequently live in smaller housing units due to the lack of affordable units with three or more bedrooms, in effect trading affordability for overcrowding. This can be seen in particular in Table 3-39, which shows that for large families, the percentage that pays less than 30 percent of income but has other housing problems is much higher than for any other household type, even at income levels above 80 percent of median. Apart from the problems this causes for the overcrowded families, it may also increase competition for housing units that otherwise might be more affordable to smaller households.

The increase in overcrowding suggests that Oakland will need to continue to increase the supply of affordable housing for all lower-income groups. The need for additional low-cost rental housing, particularly rental housing affordable to large families will continue to be an especially urgent need.

168 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-40 Persons per Room in All Occupied Housing Units (2010)

Owner Renter Total Persons Per Room Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Less than 1.00 62,951 96% 81,813 92% 126,384 84% 1.01 to 1.50 2,055 3% 4,390 5% 8,925 6% 1.51 or more 638 1% 3,007 3% 15,478 10% Total 65,644 100% 88,305 100% 150,787 100% Percent Overcrowded by Tenure 2,693 4% 7,397 8% 24,403 16% Source: American Community 5-Year Survey 2006-2010 Note: There are high Margins of Error (MOE) associated with the 2006-2010 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) of the American Community Survey. The Census defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens). Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.

H. SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS Seniors

There were 43,559 seniors and 28,796 households headed by seniors residing in the City of Oakland as of 2010. According to the Census, these figures represent an increase of 4.2 percent in the number of seniors living in Oakland and a 6.2 percent increase in the number of senior households, or an increase of 1,771 seniors and 1,669 senior households, respectively since the 2000 Census. In contrast, the citywide population declined by 2.2 percent during the same period.

The City defines seniors (individuals over the age of 60 years) as a special-needs group. Lower-income seniors may have special housing requirements due to their needs for accessibility, supportive services, affordable rents, and smaller unit sizes. Many seniors also require housing near public transportation and in proximity to local services and health care.

Nearly 45 percent of senior-headed households consist of a single elderly person living alone. In comparison, a smaller percentage of non-senior individuals live alone. Unfortunately, income data was not collected in the 2010 Census. According to the 2000 Census, a significant number of seniors—5,329 or 13 percent of seniors—had poverty-level incomes that at the time of the 2000 Census, was below that of the general population35. According to the American Community Service 5-year data from 2006-2010 (ACS 5-year data for 2010) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data, 48 percent of seniors have very low-incomes and over 30 percent of these seniors paid half of their incomes or more for housing.

The number of owner-occupied housing units headed by seniors also increased, from 16,052 to 16,443 between 2000 and 2010, a 2 percent increase. The number of senior renters increased by a larger number, from 11,075 to 12,353 during the ten-year period, constituting, an 11.5 percent increase. While Oakland’s general population declined between 2000 and 2010, the number of seniors and the number of senior households increased.

35 2000 Census, Table P 87, SF 3

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 169 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

This trend suggests a continued and increasing need for affordable senior housing, especially rental housing for very low-income seniors, and a growing need for assisted care facilities so that seniors do not have to leave Oakland as they age. Even those seniors who do not need financial assistance may face limited choices for suitable housing if they choose to stay in Oakland.

There are approximately 8,096 households headed by senior citizens that are receiving some form of housing assistance (see Table 3-42). This level of assistance helps about 65 percent of senior households renting in Oakland as of 2010 Census (12,353 senior households). In a recent survey of wait lists for privately owned and managed assisted rental housing developments for senior citizens, City staff received responses to a phone survey from 8 developments (out of a total of 53 properties in the City’s database). Only 5 of the surveyed housing developments were accepting applications for housing. Of the housing developments surveyed, the average wait list length was 95 households. The average wait time for these units was about 15 months. Given the demographic trend of an increasing elderly population there is a continued need for affordable housing targeted toward senior citizens. Housing developments for senior households should contain smaller housing units than projects intended for the general population due to the preponderance of one- and two-person senior households.

In addition to special subsidized rental housing developments for seniors, there are 42 community care facilities licensed in the City of Oakland according to the California State Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD). These facilities provide assisted living for 2,419 seniors in the City of Oakland. (Note that this is a decrease of 18 facilities over what was reported in the last Housing Element. CCLD staff could not explain the difference though they said that it is conceivable that some facilities that were listed in 2008 are no longer in operation). Facilities range in size from small (six beds) to larger retirement hotels providing space for over 100 seniors at a single location.

Table 3-41 presents information on recent trends in the numbers of individual seniors and senior households. Table 3-42 summarizes the characteristics of assisted senior housing units in Oakland.

Table 3-41 Senior Population and Households in Oakland (1990, 2000 and 2010)

Percent Percent 1990 2000 Change Change 2010 Change Change Total Population (All ages) 372,242 399,484 27,242 7.3% 390,724 -8,760 -2.2% Senior Population 45,231 41,788 -3,443 -7.6% 43,559 1,771 4.2% Total Households (All ages) 144,766 150,790 6,024 4.2% 153,791 3,001 2.0% Senior Households 31,885 27,127 -4,758 -14.9% 28,796 1,669 6.2% Owner-Occupied Units Headed 18,448 16,052 -2,396 -13.0% 16,443 391 2.4% by Seniors Renter-Occupied Units Headed 13,437 11,075 -2,362 -17.6% 12,353 1,278 11.5% by Seniors Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000 and 2010. Note: Seniors are defined as persons age 65 and older.

170 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-42 Subsidized Senior Housing and Units and Vouchers (2014)

Number of Type of Housing Units Subsidized Senior Housing Units 4,547 (Privately Owned and in Subsidized Senior Housing Developments) Public Housing Units Occupied by Seniors (OHA) 302 Subtotal Assisted Senior Units 4,849 Seniors with Making Transition Work Vouchers—Head of Household 62+ years (OHA) 2,609 Seniors with Section 8 Certificates/Vouchers--Head of Household 62+ years (OHA) 600 Total Senior Households Receiving Assistance 8,058 Sources: City of Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development and Oakland Housing Authority.

Persons with Disabilities

Persons with disabilities may require living arrangements that meet their specific physical and financial needs, depending on the severity of their disabilities and whether they are affected by a physical, mental, alcohol/drug-related, or a chronic disease handicap. While some individuals require full support services in their residences, others only require modifications to their homes to make their housing units more accessible.

According to the 2000 Census, 23 percent of the population age five and older (84,452 individuals) who live in Oakland reported a disability. As age increases, the incidence of disability increases. Nearly half of the population 65 and older reported having a disability. Persons with disabilities often face limited earning potential due to such factors as the nature of their disabilities, their status as retired seniors, and the reluctance of some employers to hire persons with disabilities. The proportion of the population in Oakland with disabilities is much greater than countywide. These factors create a high demand for affordable and alternative housing and support services to meet the needs of persons with disabilities.

Table 3-43 Persons With Disability by Employment Status (2000) Percent of Percent of Alameda Oakland Alameda Persons with a Disability Oakland County Population County Population Population Population Age 5-64, Employed Persons with a Disability 30,758 8.3% 101,014 7.6% Age 5-64, Not Employed Persons with a Disability 33,544 9.1% 85,649 6.4% Persons Age 65+ with a Disability 20,150 5.5% 61,895 4.6% Total Persons with a Disability 84,452 22.9% 248,558 18.7% Total Population (Civilian Non-Institutional) 368,769 1,332,471

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 171 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-44 Persons With Disability by Disability Type (2000) Persons with a Disability, Oakland By Disability Type Population Total Disabilities 154,925 Total Disabilities for Ages 5-64 112,146 Sensory Disability 6,500 Physical Disability 18,899 Mental Disability 14,853 Self-care Disability 6,743 Go-outside-home Disability 25,647 Employment Disability 39,504 Total Disabilities for Ages 65+ 42,779 Sensory Disability 5,869 Physical Disability 13,582 Mental Disability 6,746 Self-care Disability 5,790 Go-outside-home Disability 10,792

Developmentally Disabled

According to Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code a “developmental disability” means a disability that originates before an individual attains age 18 years, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual which include mental retardation, cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. This term shall also include disabling conditions found to be closely related to mental retardation or to require treatment similar to that required for individuals with mental retardation, but shall not include other handicapping conditions that are solely physical in nature.

Many developmentally disabled persons can live and work independently within a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment where supervision is provided. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment where medical attention and physical therapy are provided. Because development disabilities exist before adulthood, the first issue in supportive housing for the developmentally disabled is the transition from the person’s living situation as a child to an appropriate level of independence as an adult.

The State Department of Developmental Services (DDS) currently provides community based services to approximately 243,000 persons with developmental disabilities and their families through a statewide system of 21 regional centers. The Regional Center of the East Bay (RCEB) is the local coordinating agency tasked with ensuring that individuals with developmental disabilities are receiving the services and supports that they are entitled to per the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Act. Their primary function is intake and eligibility assessment, and contracting with service providers. The State of California’s Bay Area Office of the State Council on Developmental Disabilities (Developmental Disabilities Area Board 5) is a federally mandated and funded organization charged with promoting the development of a consumer and family-centered, comprehensive system of services and supports for individuals with developmental disabilities. Area Board 5 is mainly a policy and advocacy organization. The Housing Consortium of the East Bay (HCEB) is an Oakland-based nonprofit whose mission is to

172 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

create inclusive communities for individuals with developmental disabilities and other special needs in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.

HCEB, RCEB and Area Board 5 collaborated to provide the City of Oakland with specific demographics for individuals with developmental disabilities in the City using federal census data, demographic trends, federally- and state-mandated trends, and the reported number of registered consumers of RCEB. RCEB identified Oakland’s population and estimated housing needs during the Housing Element period of 2015- 2023. A “Housing Need Factor” per age group was inferred based on data collected by the State of California Department of Developmental Services. Table 3-45 summarizes that need according to age group.

Table 3-45 Oakland Developmentally Disabled Population* (2015-23)

0-14 15-22 23-54 55-65 years years years years 65+years All Total Population 1,402 868 1,988 260 94 4,612 Regional Center for the East Bay 25% 50% 35% 25% 20% “Need Factor” Estimated Housing 351 434 696 65 19 1,564 Unit Need *. State of California definition: the population with a lifelong disability caused by a mental or physical impairment manifested prior to the age 18 years and includes conditions such as mental retardation, epilepsy, autism, cerebral palsy or other conditions that require services similar to a person with mental retardation.

As identified in the last Housing Element and what seems to be still applicable in this planning period, among the most urgent needs reported by organizations serving persons with disabilities are independent living units with supportive services; treatment for persons with chemical dependency, mental illness, and chronic illness; and life and job skills training to increase the ability of these individuals to live independently.

A number of public and private organizations provide financial assistance, housing, residential care, and support services to persons with disabilities. However, the number of persons with disabilities in need of assistance is far greater than the availability of assistance. The waiting time to receive this assistance is very long. As identified in the last Housing Element and what seems to be still applicable in this planning period, service providers report that there is an urgent need for more housing vouchers with rental assistance for this population. The City’s Assisted Housing Inventory identifies 1,079 assisted rental units that are accessible to people with disabilities or that are targeted to the disabled population or people with HIV/AIDS. As identified in the last Housing Element and what seems to be still applicable in this planning period, there are a number of accessible units in private developments, but many people who have disabilities still find it extremely difficult to locate housing that is either accessible or suitable for adaptation. To address this problem, in new federally funded projects, including those funded with CDBG and HOME funds, at least five percent of all units must be accessible to persons with disabilities.

The City’s Assisted Housing Inventory identified 166 permanent housing units in ten developments designated specifically for individuals with mental and physical disabilities, as well as for those individuals with HIV/AIDS. There are also a number of residential care facilities for the mentally disabled scattered throughout the City, serving mostly non-senior adults and children and youths under the age of 25 (though there are no tenant protections—they are exempted in Oakland’s Rent Adjustment Ordinance Section 8.22.030). There is currently only one developer in the East Bay that specializes in

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 173 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

housing for those people with developmental disabilities—Housing Consortium of the East Bay. Other housing resources include landlords renting to tenants or living with a family caretaker/member36.

There is a clear need for residential facilities offering HIV/AIDS services, including provision of mental health counseling and support groups, advocacy for legal issues, and assistance in obtaining benefits and paying bills, including medical expenses. Additionally, as the disease progresses, persons with AIDS need additional services, such as help with meals, chores, transportation, child-care, and respite care.

There are also a number of residential alcohol and drug treatment centers, with inpatient and outpatient counseling services. However, according to service providers, the waiting time for admission into these programs is very long, during which time the needs of persons seeking services can become more severe.

Many people with disabilities, particularly those recently released from hospital care, have little or no income. Individuals who receive housing vouchers (Section 8) for rental assistance often find it difficult to locate rental housing for which housing vouchers can be used and property owners willing to accept the voucher. In some cases, the rent is above the fair market rent the federal program will cover, creating a gap between the assistance available under the voucher program and the actual rental cost, which must be paid by the voucher holder. Single-Parent Headed Households

According to the 2000 Census, the City of Oakland has 18,314 single parent households, about the same number as in 1990. Over three-quarters of these households are female-headed. The number of male single-parent households increased by nearly one-third, while the number of female single-parent households decreased by six percent. Although the number of single-father households has increased significantly since 1990, they still comprise less than one-quarter of all single-parent households.

Single-parent householders face constraints in housing due to their lower incomes and the need to access childcare and other support services. It is important that single parent households live close to schools, local services, child-care, and health care facilities because many lack private vehicles. Although the total number of single parent households has remained steady, the extremely high poverty rate among female- headed, single-parent households, suggests that the City will continue to face a need for additional, affordable family housing with access to support services.

Table 3-46 compares the number of female-headed households in 2000.

36 Additionally, there can be issues with those with a developmental disability who live with a family caretaker/member (e.g.: parent or sibling), who might not effectively plan for housing in the case that the caretaker is unable to care for the family member due to illness, aging or death.

174 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-46 Female Headed Households (2000)

Number Percent Total Households 150,971 100% Total Female Headed Households 26,486 18% Female Heads with Children under 18 years 14,932 10% Female Heads without Children under 18 years 11,554 8% Total Families under the Poverty Level 14,136 100% Female Headed Households under the Poverty Level 7,816 55% Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2000. Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Among single parent households, three percent of male-headed households are living below the poverty line, compared to 55 percent of female-headed households (7,816 in 2000). Female-headed households with children still have the highest poverty rates of all population groups. Poverty rates for women with children have not improved significantly in the past decade, and are nearly double that of all families. (A poverty level income for a single parent with two children is about the equivalent to a full-time job at minimum wage.)

Although 2000 Census data indicate that the percentage of households on public assistance (which includes many single mothers) has declined, anecdotal evidence suggests that many of these single parents earn low wages that have not raised their incomes above the poverty level. The Homeless

A lack of financial resources, education, and job training; the presence of disabilities; substance abuse; chronic, debilitating illness; and domestic violence all contribute to homelessness. The most recent information on the number of homeless persons and families in Oakland is inferred from the 2013 Alameda Countywide Homeless Count and Survey Report (2013 Count). This point-in-time homeless count and survey conducted on January 30, 2013, provides the most current data on the homeless population at the county level. Oakland has assumed 52% of the County’s homeless population is in Oakland. This is based on findings from the 2009 Homeless Count (the last count with regional data), as well as analysis of data in the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). Approximately 2,217 individuals (1,412 households) are homeless at any point in time in Oakland. Minorities make up a disproportionate share of this total. As many homeless persons have mental and/or chemical dependency problems, supportive services are important.

As a companion to EveryOne Home (Alameda County’s 10 Year Plan to End Homelessness, adopted in 2006), Oakland’s Permanent Access to Housing (PATH) Strategy, adopted in 2007, is a roadmap for ending homelessness in the city over the next 15 years. Both EveryOne Home and PATH emphasize greater coordination and mutual accountability among all systems (homeless services, HIV/AIDS, and mental health services and affordable housing development, affordable to populations 15% and below area median income.) by broadening the population whose needs are addressed to include those who are homeless or most at-risk of homelessness due to poverty or disability.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 175 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

The City of Oakland has adopted a “housing-first” approach through its PATH Strategy to end homelessness in Oakland. This plan has eight recommended strategies organized into the following five goal areas:

• Goal (P): Prevent Homelessness and Other Housing Crisis

• Goal (H): Increase Housing Opportunities for Targeted Populations

• Goal (S): Deliver Flexible Services to Support Stability and Independence

• Goal (M): Measure Success and Report Outcome

• Goal (L): Develop Long-Term Leadership and Build Political Will

Under PATH, homeless people are moved directly from the streets or shelter into permanent housing. Needed services are offered to those who are housed. These services offered are not mandatory and include but are not limited to client engagement around mental health and substance use after tenant is housed. These services are designed to meet the client “where they are”, providing only those services needed by the housed client. The desired outcome is the end of homelessness through the securing or retaining of housing.

While the City of Oakland has a significant inventory of affordable housing, there are very long waiting lists for these units and most of them do not have supportive services or are not affordable to the current homeless population. There is tremendous unmet need for housing the 1,412 unsheltered homeless households or those at risk of being homeless. PATH contends that homelessness can be prevented or ended for these 1,412 households only by creating affordable and supportive housing units affordable to those with extremely low incomes. Further, resolving to end homelessness would require short-term subsidies for those who have obtained housing but are at risk of becoming homelessness. See Table 3-47 and Table 3-48 for an estimate of the sheltered and unsheltered homeless population. Table 3-49 provides an inventory of the emergency shelters, transitional housing facilities and permanent supportive housing facilities in the City of Oakland.

Table 3-47 Household Type: All Households/All Persons Sheltered Emergency Transitional Unsheltered Total County of Alameda Total Households 667 544 1,504 2,715 Total Persons 914 1,013 2,337 4,264 City of Oakland Total Households 347 283 782 1,412 Total Persons 475 527 1,215 2,2171 Source: 2013 Alameda Countywide Homeless Count and Survey Report; Oakland’s homeless share derived from County survey 1 This estimate is consistent with the estimate of Oakland’s share of the homeless population that Alameda County produced using data from the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS). The 2013 HMIS assigned 2,202 homeless people to the City of Oakland.

176 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-48 2013 Homeless Subpopulations County of Alameda Oakland Sheltered1 Unsheltered2 Total Sheltered Unsheltered Total Chronically Homeless Individuals 3 171 760 931 89 395 484 Chronically Homeless Families4 11 26 37 6 14 19 Persons in Chronically Homeless Families 29 94 123 15 49 64 Veterans 139 353 492 72 184 256 Female Veterans 9 11 20 5 6 10 Severely Mentally Ill 477 629 1,106 248 327 575 Chronic Substance Abuse 354 935 1,289 184 486 670 Persons with HIV/AIDS 25 72 97 13 37 50 Victims of Domestic Violence 381 665 1,046 198 346 544 Source: 2013 Alameda Countywide Homeless Count and Survey Report; Oakland’s homeless share derived from County survey. Notes: 1Includes persons in emergency shelters and transitional housing, except that chronically homeless individuals and families include only persons in emergency shelters. 2 Literally Homeless: An individual or family who lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, meaning: (i) has a primary nighttime residence that is a public or private place not meant for human habitation; (ii) is living in a publicly or privately operated shelter designated to provide temporary living arrangements (including congregate shelters, transitional housing, and hotels and motels paid for by charitable organizations or by federal, state and local government programs); or (iii) is exiting an institution where (s)he has resided for 90 days or less and who resided in an emergency shelter or place not meant for human habitation immediately before entering that institution 3 HUD defines a chronically homeless individual as an unaccompanied homeless adult living on the street or in a shelter who has a disabling condition and has either been continuously homeless for a year or more, or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years. 4 A chronically homeless family is a family (including at least one minor child) with at least one adult member (18 or older) who has a disabling condition who has either been continuously homeless for a year or more, or has had at least four episodes of homelessness in the past three years.

In addition to the homeless subpopulations presented above in Table 3-48, the 2013 Count also included a breakdown of the number of males and females who are homeless. In 2013, women were just over 13% of the unsheltered homeless population; men comprised 84% of the unsheltered homeless population.

The County of Alameda prepares inventories of emergency shelters, transitional housing and permanent supportive housing. Although Oakland’s 2007 PATH Strategy promotes a housing first policy, emergency shelters still provide a key link in the care for homeless people, particularly due to budget cuts negatively impacting the production of new affordable housing. The City’s Human Services Department provided the Oakland-specific list of shelters (based on the County inventory) for the 2012-2013 period in Table 3-49.

The inventory includes 12 emergency shelter facilities and 18 transitional housing facilities and each housing a variety of households: single women with children, households with children, youth (male and female), single males and females, and single males. The emergency shelters and transitional housing facilities in Oakland have a combined 1,086 beds. The average utilization rate across the shelters is approximately 75%. Additionally, transitional housing facilities outside the City of Oakland, including a total of approximately 66 beds for families and single individuals, have been included because many homeless people originate in the City of Oakland and are placed in the surrounding cities.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 177 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023 Table 3-49 City of Oakland Homeless Shelters

2012 County of Alameda Inventory of Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing Facilities in Oakland Beds Units Beds Year- Total Prog. Organization Physical Target Target HH HH HH Total Utilization Program Name Round Seasonal Type Name Address Pop. A Pop. B w/ w/ w/o Beds Rate Beds Beds Children Children Children

24 Hour Oakland 77th Street Shelter Parent / Teacher (4700 International ES Children's Center Blvd) SFHC 17 5 17 0 17 71%

A Safe Place (DV ES A Safe Place shelter) HC DV 20 6 0 20 0 20 100% Nika's Place Alameda Family (formerly Dream ES Services Catcher) 422 Jefferson St YMF 8 2 8 0 8 100% Emergency Housing - Henry Anka Behavioral Robinson Multi- ES Health Inc. Service Center 559 16th St HC 20 8 20 0 20 50% Ariel Outreach Mission - Ariel Outreach Emergency Shelter ES Mission (DV shelter) SFHC 12 3 7 19 19 95% City Team City Team 722 Washington ES Ministries Ministry Shelter St SM 50 50 0 50 92% Covenant House Youth Crisis 200 Harrison ES Oakland Shelter Street SMF 18 18 0 18 83% Emergency Storm located in ES Dorothy Day House Shelter Berkeley SMF 40 40 0% East Oakland Shelter Service 7515 Community Project Program International ES (EOCP) (Crossroads) Blvd SMF+HC 15 5 85 100 100 98% 4848 Oakland Catholic Oakland Catholic International ES Worker Worker Shelter Blvd SMF 8 8 0 8 100% Salvation Army Family Emergency 2794 Garden ES Salvation Army Shelter Street SMF+HC 76 16 76 0 76 67%

178 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023 2012 County of Alameda Inventory of Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing Facilities in Oakland Beds Units Beds Year- Total Prog. Organization Physical Target Target HH HH HH Total Utilization Program Name Round Seasonal Type Name Address Pop. A Pop. B w/ w/ w/o Beds Rate Beds Beds Children Children Children 925 Brockhurst St MC Winter Street, Oakland ES St. Mary's Center Shelter CA 94608 SMF 25 27 100% BACS Transitional City of Oakland Housing / Henry TH HDS / BACS Robinson 559 16th St SMF 137 137 75%

BOSS Casa Maria 2280 SAN TH BOSS (not ES or TS) PABLO AVE SMF 25 25 25 96%

TH BOSS Rosa Parks House 521 W Grand SMF HIV 23 23 23 61% City of Oakland Human Services Department (HDS) East Oakland Community Project Matilda Cleveland 8314 MacArthur TH (EOCP) Transitional Blvd HC 44 14 44 44 86% City of Oakland Families in 10 single units TH DHS / EOCP Transition scattered HC 32 9 32 32 91% Covenant House / City of Oakland / Oakland Homeless Youth Housing Collaborative CH RS Rites of 200 Harrison TH (OHYHC) Passage (ROP) Street SMF 12 12 12 100% East Oakland 7515 Community Project EOCP SSP VA - International TH (EOCP) GPD (Crossroads) Blvd SMF VET 15 15 15 100% EOCP / City of 1024 101st TH Oakland / OHYHC EOCP Our House Avenue SMF 7 7 7 86% scattered site First Place for model (30 sites TH Youth Oakland PATH of 1-2 res) SMF+HC 6 3 7 13 13 115% scattered site First Place for model (30 sites TH Youth OPRI Probation of 1-2 res) SMF+HC 6 3 7 13 13 108%

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 179 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023 2012 County of Alameda Inventory of Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing Facilities in Oakland Beds Units Beds Year- Total Prog. Organization Physical Target Target HH HH HH Total Utilization Program Name Round Seasonal Type Name Address Pop. A Pop. B w/ w/ w/o Beds Rate Beds Beds Children Children Children scattered site First Place for model (30 sites TH Youth OYHC of 1-2 res) SMF+HC 6 3 6 12 12 117% scattered site First Place for model (30 sites TH Youth THP Plus of 1-2 res) SMF+HC 50 25 50 100 100 69% Rising Oaks Fred Finch Youth (Turning Point is 3800 Coolidge TH Center (FFYC) in Berkeley) Ave SMF 30 30 30 78% FEED (Family, Economic, Empowerment, Development) TH Images on the Rise Program HC 100 16 100 100 Images on the Rise (Domestic TH Images on the Rise Violence) SMF 10 10 10 100% Oakland Elizabeth TH House Elizabeth House 6423 Colby St SMF+HC 25 7 0 25 25 88% House of Dignity TH Operation Dignity (HoD) 585 8th St SMF VET 30 30 45 110% 3202 San Pablo TH St. Mary's Center Closer to Home Ave SMF SR TOTAL 437 125 390 964 65 1,046 Cherryland Family Emergency District of Shelter Coalition Banyan House unincorporated TH* (FESCO) Transitional Alameda Co. HC 24 24 Building Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency McKinley Family TH* (BOSS) Transitional House City of Berkeley HC 24 24 Bessie Coleman Court/Alameda Alameda Point Point Transitional TH* Collaborative House Alameda Point HC DV 44 Women’s Daytime Bridget TH* Drop-in Center Transitional House City of Berkeley SFHC

180 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023 2012 County of Alameda Inventory of Emergency Shelters and Transitional Housing Facilities in Oakland Beds Units Beds Year- Total Prog. Organization Physical Target Target HH HH HH Total Utilization Program Name Round Seasonal Type Name Address Pop. A Pop. B w/ w/ w/o Beds Rate Beds Beds Children Children Children Union City, Bridgeway Fremont, TH* Tri-City FESCO Apartments Hayward Harrison House Family Services TH* BOSS Program West Berkeley HC Cherryland District of South County unincorporated TH* BOSS Sober Housing Alameda Co. SMF 18 18 TOTAL 48 44 18 66 *Transitional housing facilities not physically located in the City of Oakland have been included here because many homeless people and families originate in Oakland and are placed in the surrounding cities.

KEY: Program Type: Target Population: ES: Emergency Shelter CO: couples only, no children TH: Transitional Shelter DV: domestic violence PSH: Permanent Supportive Housing HC: households with children HIV: human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) that causes the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) SF: single females SFHC: single females and households with children SM: single males SMHC: single males and households with children SMF: single males and females SMF + HC: Single male and female plus households with children SR: VET: Veterans YF: youth females (under 18 years old) YM: youth males (under 18 years old) YMF: youth males and females (under 18 years old)

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 181 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Breaking the cycle of homelessness will require a comprehensive approach that combines housing assistance first with needed support services. According to homeless service providers, in addition to actual housing, treatment of mental illness and substance abuse, life skills training, and intensive case management are among the highest priorities for reducing homelessness. Greater availability of supportive housing with support services is identified as a high priority as is subsidies for a rapid rehousing model of care for all homeless population groups.

Recent legislative decisions have impacted the rate of implementation of Oakland’s PATH Strategy. The dissolution of redevelopment agencies, and the subsequent loss of redevelopment funds targeted towards affordable housing, coupled with Federal cuts to housing programs, has severely hindered the production of new affordable housing in Oakland, bringing production to a near standstill. A limited amount of affordable housing funding is available through the City's annual federal HOME grant, tax credits, and through the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, but these resources are not sufficient to produce affordable housing in the volume of the recent past. The loss of redevelopment blight abatement funding has also impacted homeless outreach activities and the abatement of homeless encampments. The federal sequestration cuts have brought about a freeze in the Section 8 housing subsidy program and a nearly complete halt to the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) portion of the Oakland PATH Re-housing Initiative, all but eliminating the City's ability to rapidly house re-entry and encampments populations. Budget cuts to the Federal HOME program for affordable housing, and for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program has likewise impacted housing activities. Similarly, on the homeless services side, a reduction of 5% in the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), CDBG, and Housing Opportunities to Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) in 2013 is projected to result in cuts to services provided under PATH, and for provision of housing and services to persons living with AIDS. ESG and CDBG funding make up approximately 64% of the City’s PATH Strategy funding. These budget cuts will lead to severely reduced services provided under PATH, and stalled affordable housing production for extremely low and very low income people. 37

In response to policy and funding challenges, and in light of prevailing demographic data, the PATH strategy is necessarily shifting available resources towards a concentration on the single adult homeless population, especially those who are living in homeless encampments. The PATH strategy is heavily data driven by the outcomes of our interventions and data developed over the past five years. The ongoing strategy will rely upon emerging models and best practices such as the Oakland Path Rehousing Initiative and the Interim Housing Model being developed at the Henry Robinson Center. PATH will use a multi-disciplinary team-based approach that will focus on:

• Enhanced outreach efforts, including field outreach for housing programs and cleanup of encampments;

• Coordinated human services, public works and Oakland Police Department interventions through implementation of CityWorks, mapping and GIS technologies; and

• Implementation of new interim housing programming and use of temporary winter shelter beds through the redesigned Henry Robinson Multi-Service Center.

PATH outcomes will remain oriented towards the overarching goal of moving homeless persons into permanent housing with appropriate support services.

37 Bedford, Sara. Oakland City Council Agenda Report. Update on PATH Homeless Strategy. Oct. 24, 2013.

182 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

The Affordable Care Act and the Public Safety Realignment Act (AB 109) offer new systems for the health of homeless people and people at-risk of becoming homeless. Under the Affordable Care Act (“Obama Care”), many low income persons currently without healthcare will become insured, and some supportive housing services may be eligible for Medicaid funding. However, the type of services eligible for Medicaid funding is limited, continuing challenges with ongoing funding for supportive housing services. The Public Safety Realignment Act focuses on alleviating overcrowding in the California State prisons and reducing the corrections budget by transferring responsibility for incarceration and supervision of many low-level inmates and parolees to the county. These non- violent, non-serious, non-high risk offenders are being released to local supervision, not state parole. The county has established a housing first program (similar to the PATH housing first policy) that provides permanent housing for this population. Large Households

The U.S. Department of Housing (HUD) defines a large household or family as one with five or more members. Large households typically require units with more bedrooms. In general, housing for these households should provide safe outdoor play areas for children and have convenient access to schools and child-care facilities. These types of needs can pose problems, particularly for large families that cannot afford to buy or rent single-family houses, because apartments and condominium units are most often developed for smaller households and may not provide adequate outdoor spaces for children. When housing prices rise faster than incomes and when the number of larger housing units with three or more bedrooms is limited, large families are often forced to live in overcrowded conditions.

The 2005-10 Consolidated Plan acknowledged the difficulty that large families face when trying to find suitable accommodations, particularly if they are low-income renters. According to the Plan, there is a correlation between the number of large, low-income families, the shortage of low-cost rental housing with three or more bedrooms, and the incidence of overcrowding and overpayment. Large, low-income renter families at all income levels face a higher percentage of housing problems than other households of similar income.

At the time of the 2010 Census, Oakland was home to 10,044 renter households and 7,276 owner households with five or more persons, for 17,320 large family households. In comparison to 2000, there has been a decrease in the number of large households among both renters and owner- occupants.

Table 3-50 compares the number of large families in 1990, 2000 and 2010.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 183 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-50 Number of Large Households in Oakland (1990, 2000 and 2010)

1990 2000 2010 Large Households Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Owner-Occupied 5-or-More Person 7,163 5.0% 8,526 5.7% 7,276 4.7% Households Renter-Occupied 5-or-More Person 9,966 6.9% 11,365 7.5% 10,044 6.5% Households Total 5-or-More Person 17,129 11.9% 19,891 13.2% 17,320 11.3% Households Total Households 144,521 100% 150,790 100% 153,791 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000 and 2010.

As noted earlier and in Table 3-40, overcrowding rates are especially severe for large families, regardless of income. This is due to an acute shortage of housing units with four or more bedrooms, especially rental units. The 2000 Census identified 11,365 renter households with five or more persons, but only 2,341 rental units with four or more bedrooms (data for number of bedrooms in housing units not available in 2010 Census data). Despite the fact that there is a much better relationship between the number of large homeowner families and large owner-occupied units, overcrowding rates are still very high for lower income large families, which suggests that more affluent families are able to occupy homes larger than they might need, while low and moderate income large families can achieve homeownership only by buying units smaller than what they might need.

184 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-51 compares the number of housing units by tenure and number of bedrooms in 2000.

Table 3-51 Housing Units by Tenure and Number of Bedrooms (2000)

Tenure Owner- Renter- Total Number of Bedrooms Occupied Occupied Studios 1,426 16,972 18,398 One-bedroom 6,015 34,842 40,857 Two-bedrooms 21,140 24,887 46,027 Three-bedrooms 22,785 9,263 32,048 Four-bedrooms 8,647 1,763 10,410 Five-or-more-bedrooms 2,469 578 3,047 Total Units 62,482 88,305 150,787 Number of units with four or more bedrooms 11,116 2,341 13,457 Percent of total units with four or more bedrooms 17% 3% 9% Source: U. S. Census Bureau, 2000

Farmworkers

Few migratory farmworkers are housed, even seasonally, within Oakland. Oakland is too far from significant agricultural areas to serve as a residential base for such workers who, by the nature of their employment, tend to live in close proximity to their jobs. According to the 2000 Census Supplemental Survey, less than one percent of the City’s residents were employed in farming, fishing, and forestry occupations in 2000. Many of these residents were not employed as field workers. Therefore, the likely need for farmworker housing in Oakland is insignificant. I. ASSISTED RENTAL HOUSING

There is a substantial amount of subsidized housing in the City of Oakland. Most of this housing is privately owned and was developed under various federal, state, and City of Oakland funding programs. Although these units are located throughout the City, there is a higher concentration in East and West Oakland and near the Downtown area.

As of December 2014, there are 9,797 privately owned, publicly subsidized rental housing units in over 180 developments in Oakland. Of these units, 166 are designated for persons with disabilities and/or HIV/AIDS, 3,649 for families, and 4,547 for seniors. Another 685 privately owned subsidized rental units are in residential hotels and 141 are transitional housing units for homeless individuals and families. Note that many of these units include Project-Based Section 8 Voucher Allocations.

In addition to these private units, the Oakland Housing Authority (OHA) owns and operates public housing units According to its 2013 Making Transitions Work Annual Report, OHA portfolio includes 1,605 public housing units, 915 of which are located at large family sites, 383 units are located in one of the five designated senior sites, and 307 units at OHA’s HOPE VI redevelopment

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 185 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

properties. OHA also provides rental subsidies to 13,565 households under the Housing Choice Voucher program for low-income residents to use in the private rental market through tenant-based or project-based vouchers.

As reported in the last Housing Element, a sizeable number of senior households benefited from this assistance. Combining the number of seniors receiving assistance from OHA with the number of senior households living in privately owned, subsidized apartments, a total of 8,058 senior households received housing assistance (See Table 3-42 for details).

The Oakland Housing Authority continues its efforts to rehabilitate and preserve its portfolio of units in the Oakland Affordable Housing Preservation Initiatives (OAHPI) by extending their long-term viability as an affordable housing resource. OHA completed disposition of 1,615 scattered site units that are now owned and managed by OAHPI with an ongoing rehabilitation program for these units. (See detail in Table 3-52)

There are several differences between the housing assistance provided by OHA and that provided by privately owned subsidized apartments and OAHPI. These include the following:

Size of units provided –.38

Amount of subsidy provided – The Section 8 and conventional public housing programs provide deep subsidies to residents since these programs require that residents pay only 30 percent of their incomes for rent. In comparison, rents in the privately assisted rental housing developments are set by formula that is independent of the income of individual tenants. Unless residents who live in the privately assisted rental housing also receive Section 8 certificates and vouchers or initial financing of a project facilitated lower rents, tenants in these properties could pay rents that exceed 30 percent of household income.

Table 3-52 provides information on privately owned subsidized rental units, and Table 3-53 provides information on Oakland Housing Authority’s portfolio of housing units in Oakland.

38 Many of the privately-owned assisted units are in senior housing developments, which typically have only studio and one- bedroom units.

186 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-52 Privately-Owned Assisted Housing Units, City of Oakland (December 2014)

Size of Subsidized Rental Units1 Total Subsidized Units Units2 SRO Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4+ BR Apartments for Persons with Disabilities/Special 172 166 12 35 91 23 -- -- Needs Apartments for Families 4,725 3,649 -- 292 1,107 1,227 890 190 Residential Hotels 739 685 542 120 27 6 3 -- Apartments for Seniors 4,576 4,547 212 1,456 2,852 16 -- -- Transitional Housing 143 141 57 30 7 35 11 1 Total Assisted Rental Units 10,355 9,188 823 1,933 4,084 1,307 904 191 Total Assisted For-Sale Units 616 609 ------Total OAHPI Units 1,615 1,615 ------Total Rental and For-Sale Units 12,586 11,412 ------Sources: City of Oakland 1The City does not have complete information on unit breakdowns, therefore this information is incomplete for rental developments and not included for ownership developments. 2 The Subsidized Unit count includes project-based rental assistance provided directly by HUD as well as units assisted with project-based Section 8 Vouchers and Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation administered by the Oakland Housing Authority. It does not include public housing units owned by the Oakland Housing Authority, which are accounted for separately, and it does not include tenant-based Section 8 vouchers and certificates because that assistance is not restricted to particular housing units and is also accounted for separately. Note: Does not include households assisted with first-time homebuyer assistance to purchase existing homes.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 187 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-53 Summary of Oakland Housing Authority Housing Units and Housing Vouchers, Oakland 2014

Elderly People with and Total Elderly Disabilities Disabled Family Occupied Public Housing Units 1,543 302 300 187 754 Section 8 Certificate/Voucher 12,329 600 2,954 2,468 6,307 Recipients Total Households Receiving Assistance from Oakland Housing 13,872 902 3,254 2,665 7,061 Authority Source: Oakland Housing Authority

In the earlier section on Housing Cost, Availability of Subsidized Housing, OHA reports that the average wait time for entry to a public housing development is between one to three years, however this time is expected to grow significantly due to historically low funding levels for the near term. The wait time for receipt of a rental housing voucher is between five and seven years. Public housing wait list times have decreased since the last report, but may increase again once all available units are leased. According to Oakland Housing Authority’s Making Transitions Work (MTW) Annual Report FY 2014, MTW Housing Choice Vouchers has 9,345 households on the waitlist; OHA-managed Public Housing has 891 households on the waitlist; third-party-managed Public Housing has 3,690 households on the waitlist. There is also a separate wait list for Project-based Voucher units.

The maps on the following pages show the location and distribution of privately-owned subsidized housing (nonprofit and for-profit) and public housing (owned and managed by the Oakland Housing Authority). These maps show that assisted housing is well dispersed throughout the flatland areas of the City – where most rental housing is located – and particularly along major corridors and other areas well-served by public transportation.

188 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Figure 3-17 Assisted Housing in North, West and Downtown Oakland, 2014

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 189 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Figure 3-18 Assisted Housing in East Oakland, 2014

190 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Figure 3-19 Oakland Housing Authority Units in North, West and Downtown Oakland, 2014

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 191 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Figure 3-20 Oakland Housing Authority Units in East Oakland, 2014

192 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

J. ANALYSIS OF ASSISTED, AT-RISK HOUSING PROJECTS

In 1989, the California Government Code was amended to include a requirement that localities identify and develop a program in their housing elements for the preservation of assisted, affordable multifamily units. Subsequent amendments have clarified the scope of the analysis to include units developed pursuant to inclusionary housing and density bonus programs. In the preservation analysis, localities are required to provide an inventory of assisted, affordable units that are eligible to convert within ten years. The analysis must include an estimation of the cost of preserving and replacing the units is to be included, as well as programs designed to preserve the affordable units. Assisted Rental Housing Eligible for Conversion

Over the past several decades, hundreds of thousands of affordable rental housing units have been constructed in California with the assistance of federal, state, and local funding (loans or grants) that restricted rents and occupancy of units to low-income households for specified periods. Once these restrictions expire, a property owner may charge market rents. Low-income occupants are often displaced when rents rise to market levels. As of the writing of the last Housing Element (2007-2014 planning period), the City of Oakland had lost 209 affordable rental units in five projects: Park Village (84 units), S&S Apartments (5 units), Garden Manor Square (71 units), Park Villa (44 units), and the Smith Apartments (5 units). There have not been any additional units lost to the affordable housing supply since then.

The Housing Element must identify any such publicly assisted rental units eligible for conversion during the ten years following adoption of the Housing Element and include a program to address their preservation, if possible. The California Housing Partnership Corporation (CHPC), a non-profit organization, assists cities in tracking at-risk units by providing lists of at-risk units. The City has supplemented this information with its own study that included interviews with managers and owners of many at-risk projects.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 193 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-54 At-Risk Housing in Oakland as of April 2014 Total Date Total Total Units Property Property Funding Management Regulatory Options for At- Units in Subsidized for Type of Unit Owner Org Name Name Address Source Org Name Agreement Renewal Risk? Property Units Senior Expires* Citizens Lottie Johnson 970 14th St 27 22 Families TCAC LOTTIE JOHNSON Charter Realty 6/30/2013 As of early Yes Apts MEMORIAL & Investments 2014 HOUSING, INC., Inc. ownership NP entity not clear that they want to renew HUD contract. San Pablo 2551 San Large Family TCAC Mead Avenue Keith J. Kim 6/24/2022 City staff was Yes? Suites Pablo Housing Associates unable to Avenue contact building ownership to determine their plans for renewal. Santana Apts 2220 10th 30 30 Families TCAC 2220 Tenth Avenue, Mercy 7/27/2022 City staff was ? Ave Inc. Services unable to contact building ownership to determine their plans for renewal.

194 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Total Date Total Total Units Property Property Funding Management Regulatory Options for At- Units in Subsidized for Type of Unit Owner Org Name Name Address Source Org Name Agreement Renewal Risk? Property Units Senior Expires* Citizens Taylor 1080 14th 12 12 Families Taylor United ? City staff was ? Methodist St Methodist Church unable to contact building ownership to determine their plans for renewal. The Claridge 634 15th Single Room TCAC Urban Green Urban Green 12/25/2023 In Yes? Hotel (Ridge Street Occupancy Investments Investments approximately Hotel) 2011 property was sold to for-profit entity and not clear that they want to renew HUD contract. Allen Temple 8135 76 75 75 Senior TCAC Allen Temple American 5/31/2013 Currently No Arms I International Citizens Development Baptist Homes owned by a Blvd Corporation of the West non-profit entity and highly likely to renew HUD contract when it expires.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 195 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Total Date Total Total Units Property Property Funding Management Regulatory Options for At- Units in Subsidized for Type of Unit Owner Org Name Name Address Source Org Name Agreement Renewal Risk? Property Units Senior Expires* Citizens Allen Temple 1388 81st 51 51 51 Senior TCAC ALLEN TEMPLE American 4/30/2017 Currently No Arms II Ave Citizens DEVELOPMENT Baptist Homes owned by a CORPORATION of the West non-profit NO.2 entity and highly likely to renew HUD contract when it expires. E.E. 2611 54 53 53 Senior TCAC HOPE SENIOR American 10/31/2015 Currently No Cleveland Alvingroom Citizens HOUSING Baptist Homes owned by a Manor Ct CORPORATION of the West non-profit entity and highly likely to renew HUD contract when it expires. Allen Temple 7607 24 23 Disabled/HIV- TCAC Allen Temple American 7/31/2021 Currently No Manor International AIDS Housing Corp IV Baptist Homes owned by a Blvd. of the West non-profit entity and highly likely to renew HUD contract when it expires.

196 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Total Date Total Total Units Property Property Funding Management Regulatory Options for At- Units in Subsidized for Type of Unit Owner Org Name Name Address Source Org Name Agreement Renewal Risk? Property Units Senior Expires* Citizens Allen Temple 10121 50 49 49 Senior TCAC Allen Temple American 10/31/2013 Currently No Gardens International Citizens Housing Corp IIII Baptist Homes owned by a Blvd of the West non-profit entity and highly likely to renew HUD contract when it expires. Northgate 550 24th St 201 200 200 Senior HUD - 202 GRAPHIC Christian 9/30/2014 Currently No Terrace Citizens COMMUNICATION Church Homes owned by a RETIREMENT of Northern non-profit CENTER California entity and highly likely to renew HUD contract when it expires. Posada de 2221 100 100 100 Senior HUD - 202 Posada de Colores Christian 9/30/2014 Currently No Colores Fruitvale Citizens Church Homes owned by a Ave of Northern non-profit California entity and highly likely to renew HUD contract when it expires.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 197 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Total Date Total Total Units Property Property Funding Management Regulatory Options for At- Units in Subsidized for Type of Unit Owner Org Name Name Address Source Org Name Agreement Renewal Risk? Property Units Senior Expires* Citizens Sojourner 5815, 5915, 88 87 87 Senior HUD - SOJOURNER Christian 9/30/2013 Currently No Truth Manor 6015 Martin Citizens 236(j)(1) TRUTH HOUSING Church Homes owned by a Luther King INC. of Northern non-profit Jr Way California entity and highly likely to renew HUD contract when it expires. Las 1231-7 37th 67 67 67 Senior HUD - 202 Las Bougainvilleas Christian 3/31/2018 Currently No Bougainvilleas Ave Citizens Senior Housing, INC Church Homes owned by a of Northern non-profit California entity and highly likely to renew HUD contract when it expires. Irene Cooper 1218 2nd 40 39 39 Senior HUD - 202 EVERGREEN Christian 9/30/2020 Currently No Terrace Ave Citizens ANNEX, INC. Church Homes owned by a of Northern non-profit California entity and highly likely to renew HUD contract when it expires.

198 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Total Date Total Total Units Property Property Funding Management Regulatory Options for At- Units in Subsidized for Type of Unit Owner Org Name Name Address Source Org Name Agreement Renewal Risk? Property Units Senior Expires* Citizens Bancroft 5636 61 60 60 Senior HUD - 202 BANCROFT Christian 9/30/2013 Currently No Senior Homes Bancroft Citizens SENIOR HOMES, Church Homes owned by a Ave INC. of Northern non-profit California entity and highly likely to renew HUD contract when it expires. Percy Abram, 1070 44 44 44 Senior HUD - 202 Abram Housing Christian 7/31/2013 Currently No Jr Senior Alcatraz Citizens Corporation Church Homes owned by a Apartments Ave of Northern non-profit California entity and highly likely to renew HUD contract when it expires. Beth Eden 1100 54 54 54 Senior HUD - Beth Eden Hsg. Dev., Christian 12/31/2016 Currently No Market St Citizens 236(j)(1) a Calif. Non-profit Church Homes owned by a Corp. of Northern non-profit California entity and highly likely to renew HUD contract when it expires.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 199 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Total Date Total Total Units Property Property Funding Management Regulatory Options for At- Units in Subsidized for Type of Unit Owner Org Name Name Address Source Org Name Agreement Renewal Risk? Property Units Senior Expires* Citizens Coolidge Ct 3800 19 18 Disabled/HIV- HUD - 811 Coolidge Court, Inc. Fred Finch 6/30/2018 Currently No Coolidge AIDS Youth Center owned by a Ave non-profit entity and highly likely to renew HUD contract when it expires. Frank G. Mar 283 13th 119 119 38 Families TCAC East Bay Asian Local East Bay 7/30/2005 Currently No Community street Development Corp. Asian Local owned by a Housing Development non-profit Corporation entity and highly likely to continue as an affordable housing development when regulatory agreement expires.

200 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Total Date Total Total Units Property Property Funding Management Regulatory Options for At- Units in Subsidized for Type of Unit Owner Org Name Name Address Source Org Name Agreement Renewal Risk? Property Units Senior Expires* Citizens Madrone 477 8th St 32 32 Residential TCAC East Bay Asian Local East Bay 9/17/2003 Currently No Hotel Hotel Development Corp. Asian Local owned by a Development non-profit Corporation entity and highly likely to continue as an affordable housing development when regulatory agreement expires. Hismen Hin- 2555 92 92 Families TCAC East Bay Asian Local East Bay 12/22/2024 Currently No nu Terrace International Development Corp. Asian Local owned by a Blvd Development non-profit Corporation entity and highly likely to continue as an affordable housing development when regulatory agreement expires.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 201 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Total Date Total Total Units Property Property Funding Management Regulatory Options for At- Units in Subsidized for Type of Unit Owner Org Name Name Address Source Org Name Agreement Renewal Risk? Property Units Senior Expires* Citizens Marcus 721 Wood 22 21 Families TCAC Jubilee West East Bay 8/24/2022 Currently No Garvey St Asian Local owned by a Commons Development non-profit Corporation entity and highly likely to continue as an affordable housing development when regulatory agreement expires. San Pablo 1955 San 144 144 144 Senior TCAC San Pablo East Bay 12/23/2024 Currently No Hotel Pablo Ave Citizens Renaissance, Inc. Asian Local owned by a Development non-profit Corporation entity and highly likely to continue as an affordable housing development when regulatory agreement expires.

202 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Total Date Total Total Units Property Property Funding Management Regulatory Options for At- Units in Subsidized for Type of Unit Owner Org Name Name Address Source Org Name Agreement Renewal Risk? Property Units Senior Expires* Citizens Town Center 1143-10th 206 206 Families TCAC BRIDGE West John Stewart 8/31/2014 Currently No at Acorn St. Oakland Housing, Company owned by a Inc. non-profit entity and highly likely to continue as an affordable housing development when regulatory agreement expires. Eldridge 1165 3rd 40 39 Families TCAC ELDRIDGE II, LLC John Stewart 10/31/2013 Currently No Gonaway Ave Company owned by a Commons non-profit entity and highly likely to continue as an affordable housing development when regulatory agreement expires.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 203 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Total Date Total Total Units Property Property Funding Management Regulatory Options for At- Units in Subsidized for Type of Unit Owner Org Name Name Address Source Org Name Agreement Renewal Risk? Property Units Senior Expires* Citizens Marlon Riggs 269 Vernon 13 12 Disabled/HIV- HUD - 811 Vernon Street John Stewart 2/29/2016 Currently No Apts St AIDS Housing, Inc. Company owned by a non-profit entity and highly likely to renew HUD contract when it expires. Eastmont 6850 19 18 Disabled/HIV- HUD - 811 Eastmont Court, Inc. John Stewart 2/28/2013 Currently No Court Foothill AIDS Company owned by a Blvd non-profit entity and highly likely to renew HUD contract when it expires. James Lee 690 15th St 26 25 Families TCAC Dignity Housing John Stewart 8/21/2022 Property No Court West Associates Company recently rehabilitated with City funds and new regulatory agreement recorded on property.

204 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Total Date Total Total Units Property Property Funding Management Regulatory Options for At- Units in Subsidized for Type of Unit Owner Org Name Name Address Source Org Name Agreement Renewal Risk? Property Units Senior Expires* Citizens Otterbein 5375 Manila 39 39 38 Senior HUD - SATELLITE Satellite 7/31/2024 Currently No Manor Ave Citizens 236(j)(1)/202 SENIOR HOMES, Affordable owned by a INC Housing non-profit Associates entity and highly likely to renew HUD contract when it expires. Doh On Yuen 211 8th St 48 46 46 Senior Satellite Currently No Citizens Affordable owned by a Housing non-profit Associates entity and highly likely to continue as an affordable housing development when regulatory agreement expires.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 205 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Total Date Total Total Units Property Property Funding Management Regulatory Options for At- Units in Subsidized for Type of Unit Owner Org Name Name Address Source Org Name Agreement Renewal Risk? Property Units Senior Expires* Citizens Glen Brook 4030 66 66 65 Senior Satellite Currently No Terrace Panama Ct Citizens Affordable owned by a Housing non-profit Associates entity and highly likely to continue as an affordable housing development when regulatory agreement expires. Park Blvd 4135 Park 42 39 39 Senior Satellite Currently No Manor Blvd Citizens Affordable owned by a Housing non-profit Associates entity and highly likely to continue as an affordable housing development when regulatory agreement expires. Sources: City of Oakland and California Housing Partnership Corporation 1 Definition as per CHPC: Date Regulatory Agreement Expires data for TCAC properties is an estimation based on when the property was placed in service and typical affordability term used at the time the property was placed in service. HUD dates based on data received from HUD.

206 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023 Other Risks of Loss of Affordable Housing

Many of the City-assisted affordable rental projects that were completed in the last two decades are now experiencing a growing number of operating and maintenance problems yet lack sufficient income or reserves to properly maintain the properties or to pay for necessary rehabilitation expenses to keep them viable over the long term. This has been well demonstrated with the problems at many of the older affordable rental properties developed by local non-profit affordable housing developers. The gap between the rental income and the operating costs continues to grow, making it almost impossible to have enough cash flow to cover monthly expenses and maintain the properties; making it difficult to finance any additional debt for repairs. In February 2008 Oakland City Council/Redevelopment Agency approved the development of a separate Notice Of Funding Availability (NOFA), a Preservation and Rehabilitation NOFA, to help fund needed operations and capital improvements for these older projects. Since then, this NOFA has allocated millions of dollars to these properties with a focus on protecting and preserving older existing affordable housing developments that have been funded by City and/or the former Redevelopment Agency loans and are currently regulated with City/Agency regulatory agreements. This NOFA also focuses on older projects, regulated by other public agencies, that the City wishes to preserve as affordable housing. Eligible capital improvements include those needed to maintain and improve the habitability of the housing and its marketability, and reduce excessive maintenance and repair costs. Table 3-55 is an analysis of the cost to preserve or replace units that are currently considered at-risk affordable housing in Oakland.

Table 3-55 Cost to Preserve and Replace At-Risk Housing in Oakland

Project Units Per Unit Cost Total Preservation Costs1 Lottie Johnson Apartments (Family) 27 $92,273 $2,491,378 The Claridge Hotel (SRO) 200 $72,906 $14,581,149 Total Cost to Preserve Units 227 $17,072,527 Replacement Costs2 Lottie Johnson Apartments (Family) 27 $437,661 $11,816,851 The Claridge Hotel (SRO) 200 N/A N/A Total Costs to Replace Units 27 $11,816,851 Sources: City of Oakland Department of Housing and Community Development, Housing Development Section 1Preservation cost comparables are based on cost certifications of developments supported by City funding in the last three years. 2Replacement cost comparables are based on cost certifications of similar new construction developments supported by City funding in the last three years. There are no comparables for new single-room occupancy developments in the City of Oakland.

Entities with Capacity to Preserve Assisted Housing

There are several non-profit organizations that have the financial capacity to own and manage rental housing. Table 3-56 lists the organizations active in Alameda County that have expressed an interest in being notified of the availability of assisted at-risk rental housing for the purpose of acquiring the units to continue affordability.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 207 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023 Resources for Preservation of Assisted Housing

There are a number of resources available to finance the acquisition and preservation of existing affordable housing. The most important is HUD’s willingness to renew and extend Section 8 contracts. The State of California’s Department of Housing and Community Development has programs available to finance the acquisition of at-risk projects, and the California Housing Finance Agency has also provided bond financing coupled with low income housing tax credits. The City will continue to make funds as they are available for preservation projects through the annual Notice of Funding Availability used to fund affordable housing development, and preservation projects received special points in that competition.

208 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-56 Non-Profit Housing Organizations Interested in Acquiring At-Risk Rental Housing

Organization Address City Alameda County Allied Housing Program 224 W. Winton Avenue, Room 108 Hayward American Baptist Homes of the West 6120 Stoneridge Mall Road, 3rd Flr. Pleasanton BRIDGE Housing Corporation 345 Spear Street, Suite 700 San Francisco Bridge Partners 2950 Buskirk Ave., Ste. 312 Walnut Creek C. Sandidge and Associates 2200 San Pablo Ave # 202 Pinole 4530 E. Thousand Oaks Blvd., Suite Westlake California Commercial Investment Group 100 Village Community Housing Development Corporation of North 1535-A Fred Jackson Way Richmond Richmond California Housing Partnership Corporation 369 Pine Street, Suite 300 San Francisco Community Housing Developers, Inc. 255 N. Market Street, Suite 290 San Jose Community Housing Works 4305 University Ave. Suite 550 San Diego Domus Development, LLC 594 Howard St., Suite 204 San Francisco East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation 1825 San Pablo Ave., Ste. 200 Oakland East Los Angeles Community Corporation 530 South Boyle Avenue Los Angeles Foundation for Affordable Housing III, Inc. 2600 Michelson Dr, Ste. 1050 Irvine San Juan Foundation for Affordable Housing, Inc. 30950 Rancho Viejo Road, Suite 100 Capistrano Hampstead Development Group, Inc. 3413 30th Street San Diego Rancho Hendricks & Partners 3100 Zinfindel Drive, Suite 100 Cordova Housing Authority of City of Alameda 701 Atlantic Ave Alameda KDF Communities, LLC 1301 Dove St., Suite 720 Newport Beach Linc Housing Corporation 100 Pine Avenue, # 500 Long Beach Mercy Housing California 1360 Mission St., Suite 300 San Francisco Mesa Realty Advisors 56 Cbana Blanca Henderson Rancho National Housing Development Corporation 10621 Civic Center Drive, First Floor Cucamonga Resources for Community Development 2220 Oxford Street Berkeley Satellite Affordable Housing Associates, Inc. 1521 University Avenue Berkeley The John Stewert Company 1388 Sutter St., 11th Floor San Francisco The Trinity Housing Foundation 836 Avalon Ave Lafayette West Bay Housing Corporation 1390 Market Street, Ste. 405 San Francisco Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2014 and City of Oakland

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 209 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023 K. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS Population Trends

Between 2000 and 2010, Oakland’s population decreased by two percent, from 399,484 to 390,724. According to Census data, the number of family households decreased in Oakland between 2000 and 2010, and the percent of household types composed of families declined.

Table 3-57 compares population growth in Oakland, Alameda County, and State of California between 1990, 2000 and 2010. While Oakland’s population declined at two percent, the county’s population increased by 5 percent and the state’s increased by 10 percent rates during the prior decade.

Table 3-57 Oakland Population Growth

1990–2000 2000–2010 Percent Percent 1990 2000 Change 2010 Change City 372,242 399,484 7% 390,724 -2% County 1,279,182 1,443,741 13% 1,510,271 5% State 29,760,021 33,871,648 14% 37,253,956 10% Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000 and 2010.

Table 3-58 compares past population growth and projected population growth through 2040 according to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). According to ABAG’s 2013 Projections, the City of Oakland is expected to reach a population of more than 551,000 by 2040. For Oakland, ABAG projected a 12.5 percent population growth rate between 2010 and 2020, an 11.9 percent increase between 2020 and 2030, and a 12 percent increase between 2030 and 2040. The ABAG population growth projection for Alameda County is 9.5 percent between 2010 and 2020, 9.4 percent between 2020 and 2030, and 9.8 percent between 2030 and 2040. In Oakland, household growth is projected to be about the same as population growth. The Jobs Forecast in Oakland according to ABAG shows significant increases with a projected a 22.6 percent growth rate between 2010 and 2020, a 7.3 percent increase between 2020 and 2030, and a 10 percent increase between 2030 and 2040.

210 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-58 City, County and Regional Projected Population Growth 2010-2040 Jurisdiction 20001 20101 20202 20302 20402 Population Forecast Oakland 399,484 390,724 439,600 492,100 551,100 Alameda County 1,443,741 1,510,271 1,654,200 1,810,300 1,987,900 Regional Total3 N/A 7,150,739 7,786,800 8,496,800 9,299,100 Households Forecast Oakland 150,790 153,791 173,270 192,790 212,470 Alameda County 523,366 545,138 598,430 651,720 705,330 Regional Total3 N/A 2,608,023 2,837,680 3,072,920 3,308,090 Jobs Forecast Oakland N/A 190,490 233,630 250,800 275,760 Alameda County N/A 694,460 826,790 875,390 947,650 Regional Total3 N/A 3,385,300 3,987,150 4,196,580 4,505,230 1 U. S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010. 2 Association of Bay Area Governments, Projections 2013. 2 Alameda County, Contra Costa, Marin County, Napa County, City and County of San Francisco, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Solano County, and Sonoma County.

Employment Trends

As the economic recovery continues in the East Bay—Alameda and Contra Costa Counties—key indicators such as employment are showing steady growth. Employment is expected to continue to grow steadily in the future, as consumer spending and hiring have improved throughout the rest of the country. Oakland and the East Bay, whose economic recovery had lagged behind that of San Francisco and the South Bay in recent years, will continue catching up to those regions.

The outlook for the East Bay remains very positive. Businesses in most sectors of the region’s economy are continually creating new jobs, increasingly innovating, and employing more and more productive employees. At the same time, consumers are spending more in the East Bay than at any point since the onset of the recession in 2007. Home prices are rising fast, while mortgage defaults and foreclosures are falling precipitously, though negative equity among homes in the East Bay remains high, at over 25%. Single-family and multifamily residential construction picked up considerably in 2012. The East Bay Economic Development Association (EBEDA) expects this pattern of economic growth to continue in the coming years.

Strong and growing sectors in Oakland continue to be health care, trade/logistics, manufacturing, innovative tech and clean tech.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 211 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-59 Occupations and Industries of Oakland Residents (2014)

Percent of All Number Number of Business Occupation of Jobs % Jobs Businesses establishments

Public Administration and Education 40,174 22% 860 3.6% Health Care 22,309 12% 2,529 10.5% Professional / Business/Other Services 17,056 9% 10,990 45.7% Wholesale, Transportation and Utilities 15,021 8% 1,708 7.1% Manufacturing 13,526 8% 780 3.2% Finance, Insurance, Real Estate Professional 7% 7.9% Services 12,037 1,891 Construction and Resources 9,831 5% 1,723 7.2% Leisure/Entertainment/Retail 9,517 5% 3,560 14.8% TOTALS 180,187 24,041 Source: Dun & Bradstreet, March 2013

212 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-60 Occupations and Industries in Oakland (2014)

Number of Number of Gross Sales Percent of All Occupation Businesses Jobs (Thousands) Employees

Health Care & Social Assistance 4,090 29,559 $3,784,804 15.8% Professional / Scientific/Technical 3,999 18,718 $3,262,710 10.0% Public Administration 325 17,028 n/a 9.1% Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 2,479 16,830 $5,622,456 6.0% Professional Services

Retail 2,730 15,205 $4,386,752 8.1% Educational Services 659 14,481 $49,943 10.0% Other Services 3,140 14,133 $648,179 7.6% Accommodations, Food Service 1,620 13,946 $862,695 7.5% Transportation and Utilities 633 10,083 $1,890,698 5.4%

Waste and Remediation 1,037 9,107 $667,784 2.5% Wholesale 721 7,900 $12,871,946 4.2% Manufacturing 631 7,782 $2,118,937 3.6% Construction and Resources 1,418 6,758 $2,260,861 0.8% $856,999 503 5,592 3.0% Information “Other Unclassified” 2,211 4,924 $179,897 2.6% Arts Entertainment Recreation 366 3,846 $365,168 2.1% Utilities 12 1,584 $896,561 <1% Agriculture, Mining 36 93 $22,442 <1% Management of Companies 19 73 $21,423 <1%

TOTALS 23,915 187,126 $39,733,359 East Bay EDA City of Oakland, March 2013. Note: Percentages may not equal 100 due to rounding.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 213 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

1. Employment by Industry Trends

With a strategic location at the hub of multimodal transportation lines, Oakland has always had strength in the production and distribution of goods. With globalization, Oakland has undergone a post-industrial transformation from a manufacturing-strength to a service-oriented economy and is now taking advantage of the new industrial/technical-based economy: software/multimedia, healthcare, telecommunications, bioscience/biotechnology, new advanced and specialty manufacturing, etc. Oakland is one of the country’s greenest cities, and despite a slowdown in venture capital funding for the region’s clean tech industry, data suggest that Oakland and the East Bay continues to serve as a hub for renewable energy investment.

While the total number of business establishments has increased in the East Bay over time, this growth is concentrated heavily among business establishments with few employees. In fact, many of these new firms have no paid employees. From 2006 to 2011, the East Bay added a net total of 10,719 new firms with 0-4 employees, while the total number of firms in nearly every other size category decreased, and the East Bay lost a number of large employers during this time. More recently, however, from 2010 to 2011, there was an increase in the number of business establishments in the East Bay across many size categories. Bureau of Labor Statistics data show that the overall number of establishments fell by 4.9% from 2011 to 2012. Because California Employment Development Department (EDD) data are not yet available, it remains to be seen whether this decrease was concentrated among small-sized firms.

Table 3-61 Oakland Top 25 Sales Tax Producers, 3rd Quarter 2013 (sorted by business type, then alphabetical) Stores Business to Business Best Buy East Bay Restaurant Supply Home Depot LN Curtis & Sons Quik Stop Market One Source Supply Solutions Safeway Target Building Materials Walgreens Economy Lumber Walmart Westside Building Material

Auto & truck sales Fuel Audi Mazda of Oakland Chevron Broadway Volkswagen Shell/Texaco Downtown SAAB Subaru Toyota Southwest Jet Fuel Enterprise Commercial Truck Honda of Oakland Entertainment/Hospitality Mercedes Benz of Oakland Aramark Entertainment One Toyota of Oakland TEC Volvo, Mack & GMC Trucks Cannabis Harborside Health Center Stores Business to Business Best Buy East Bay Restaurant Supply Home Depot LN Curtis & Sons Quik Stop Market One Source Supply Solutions

214 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Safeway Target Building Materials Walgreens Economy Lumber Walmart Westside Building Material

Auto & truck sales Fuel Audi Mazda of Oakland Chevron Broadway Volkswagen Shell/Texaco Downtown SAAB Subaru Toyota Southwest Jet Fuel Enterprise Commercial Truck Honda of Oakland Entertainment/Hospitality Mercedes Benz of Oakland Aramark Entertainment One Toyota of Oakland TEC Volvo, Mack & GMC Trucks Cannabis Harborside Health Center Source: HdL, October 2013

2. Recent and Anticipated Changes in Employment and Impacts on the Housing Market

Beacon Economics forecasts that East Bay employment will grow 2.1% from the fourth quarter of 2013 to the fourth quarter of 2014, or 3.3% over current levels, to over 1 million jobs. These short- run growth rates are forecast to continue in the long run. As economic growth persists over time and firms become more confident about the long-run health of the economy, higher-skilled sectors will begin to take on more permanent employees at a faster rate. The result is that by the end of 2018, many higher-skilled sectors are expected to have matched, or surpassed, the overall rates of growth in lower-wage sectors. Given these trends that will likely put pressure on the housing market, it will be important to encourage the development of affordable housing for low wage workers and strengthen rental protections for existing residents.

Employment has steadily grown in the East Bay since mid-2010, as East Bay businesses hire more employees almost every month, and as more and more East Bay residents find work in the East Bay and elsewhere. East Bay residents are finding work at a faster pace than East Bay businesses are adding new workers. Lower-skilled employment sectors have seen some of the biggest job growth in the East Bay in recent years. Some of these sectors, such as Administrative Support and Leisure & Hospitality, employ many part-time and temporary workers. Employment in the Construction sector is increasing quickly, in turn, up 9.9% from March 2012 to March 2013. As firms have begun to ramp up construction, labor demand is increasing rapidly as a result.

Even as the economy of the East Bay has improved, many firms have been reluctant to add permanent, full-time employees to their payrolls, and thus job growth in sectors such as Financial Activities (-0.7% March 2012 to March 2013 year over year) and Information (-3% year over year) have been slow or negative, while job growth in sectors such as Administrative Support, which includes temporary employees, has been very strong (4%). Note, though, that employment in the Professional sector has been very strong since early 2011. This sector, which includes scientific and technical occupations such as research, is one of the East Bay’s strengths relative to other regions, and its strong growth during the economic recovery is a reason to be optimistic about the health of the

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 215 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

East Bay economy in years to come. Jobs in this sector will be key as the economy transitions toward more higher-skill, higher-tech business in the future.

The Management and Professional sectors, which have already shown solid growth throughout the economic recovery, will continue to lead the recovery among higher-skilled employment sectors. By the end of 2014, employment in these sectors is expected to rise by 3.5% over current levels. This should come as a benefit to advanced manufacturing in the East Bay, which is a crucial employment cluster in the region.

The rebound of the housing market will come as a boon to a Construction sector that lost 40% of its jobs during the recession. By the fourth quarter of 2018, the Construction sector is forecast to grow 36% over current levels, to 75,000 jobs.

2012 proved a turning point for both the construction sector and the housing market, as residential construction truly took off. Single-family and multifamily residential building permitting increased dramatically from 2011 to 2012. Oakland played one of the biggest roles in this growth: the number of single-family residential building permits grew by 380% from 2011 to 2012.

The Education and Healthcare sectors have grown over the past several years, bolstered by a strong Health Care sector that continued to add new jobs even amid the Great Recession. Over the last five years, in both sectors employment has increased by 11%. Together, the Education and Health Services sectors are forecast to grow by approximately 9% over current levels (1% to 1.5% growth per year) by the end of 2018, surpassing 150,000 jobs by the first quarter of 2018.

Commercial Real Estate

The office property vacancy rate in the East Bay as of May 2013, at 18%, has fallen to its lowest level since 2009 (18%), but it has yet to decrease to pre-recession levels. The Oakland Central Business District holds the lowest vacancy rate in the East Bay, at 12% and the highest rent, at $28.67 per square foot.

Warehouse vacancy rates have fallen in the East Bay and elsewhere in the Bay Area, while rents have climbed slightly in each area. Warehouse occupancy continues to increase in the East Bay, with a large increase in net absorption in the fourth quarter of 2012 relative to the fourth quarter of 2011.

Among industrial property in the Bay Area, the East Bay continues to have the highest rate of vacancy, at 10%, but the steady declines in the vacancy rates since 2010 is reason to be optimistic. Net absorption increased substantially among East Bay industrial property in the fourth quarter of 2012 relative to the fourth quarter of 2011, led primarily by a large uptick in leasing at manufacturing centers along the I-880 corridor, a good-sized portion of which is located in Oakland.

Retail property in the East Bay has had a slower process of recovery. Among retail property in the Bay Area, the East Bay continues to have the highest rate of vacancy, at 6%--which is seen as healthy—but the steady declines in the vacancy rates in retail property since 2010 is reason to be optimistic. Anchor stores in Alameda County maintain a low vacancy rate, such as Central/North Alameda at 5%, with relatively affordable rents for the region.

Over 3.8 million square feet of commercial, industrial and civic space was developed in 1999-May 2013. Another 6.1 million square feet is in process (a Planning application has been submitted or approved). This new space represents thousands of jobs at private firms, regional medical centers and other employers.

216 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Table 3-62 Mixed Use or Non-Residential Projects Underway in Oakland

Retail/Entertainment/Hospitality Retail, Central 300,000 sf + Brooklyn Basin residential Entitled Estuary 3,100 units North The Ridge Shopping Center (Safeway) Retail Entitlements Oakland 303,700 sf Retail office Application Jack 1.2million Jack London Square entertainment Submitted London sf, 660 units Upper Shops at Broadway (Sprouts) Retail Entitled Broadway 35,000 sf Retail, residential , Under Upper 104,063 sf The Hive office Construction Broadway + 105 units Retail, residential, Oakland Oak Knoll office In the pipeline Hills TBD City Centers 1 & 2 Office Downtown 1 million sf Sears site Retail, office In the pipeline Downtown 400,000 sf Telegraph & 19th Hotel In the pipeline Uptown 100 rooms Telegraph & 22nd Hotel In the pipeline Uptown 100 rooms Jack London Square Redevelopment Phase 2 Entertainment In the pipeline Downtown 1.2million sf Broadway at 11th Hotel In the pipeline Downtown 150 rooms Retail, MacArthur BART Transit Village residential 535 units Foothill Square Shopping Center (Foods Co, Retail Under East 157,000 sf Ross, Anna’s Linens) Construction Oakland Under Safeway at Claremont & College Retail Construction 55,000 sf Office, Institutional & Logistics Under West Oakland Army Base Industrial Construction Oakland 1 million sf Under Airport Goodman Birtcher Industrial Construction Area 360,000 sf Under Alta Bates Summit Medical Center Hospital Construction Pill Hill 230,000 sf Under Central Highland Medical Center Hospital Construction Oakland 900,000 sf Children’s Hospital Hospital Entitlements North 380,000 sf Oakland Hospital - Under Mid Town Kaiser Permanente Garage Construction Broadway 1 million sf Source: City of Oakland Summary Information from Office of Mayor Jean Quan February 2014.

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 217 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

Residential Real Estate

A rapid decrease in the number of lower-value distressed properties on the market has contributed to a substantial increase in home prices in the East Bay, and as home inventories remain very low by historical standards, EBEDA expects home prices to continue to rise quickly in the coming year. An increase in supply, caused by a substantial increase in residential construction, will mitigate growth in prices over time, but the impact of this new construction will not be significant in the short term.

Despite the increase in home prices in the past year, home affordability remains near an all-time high. Even as home prices appreciate faster than incomes in the Bay Area, interest rates on mortgages remain so low that homes are about as inexpensive as they were at the end of 2011, and as inexpensive in the East Bay as they were upon the onset of the recession in late 2007, at 34.5% of income. Compare this to the peak of the housing bubble, when home costs in the East Bay were as high as 93% of income.

Apartment rents are continuing to rise quarter after quarter, but the East Bay offers the lowest average apartment rent in the Bay Area. The monthly cost of rent in Oakland increased by 4.7% from the fourth quarter of 2011 to the fourth quarter of 2012, to $1,371. By comparison, in San Jose, the monthly cost of rent increased by 5.4% to $1,616 over the same period, and in San Francisco, the monthly cost of rent increased by 5.6% to $1,970.

1. Opportunities for Promoting and Improving Job Housing Balance

Oakland is relatively dense residentially39 and offers many land-use-diverse neighborhoods. City policies support further density and multi-level buildings. Specific initiatives to support these policies include:

• Oakland General Plan – Dense residential development encouraged along transit corridors and arterials and in the Central Business District. • Specific Plans – Several specific plans are under way across the City. They all support densely developed transit corridors and horizontal and vertical mixed use development. See Table 3-63 below. • Priority Development Areas – Regional transportation funds will be funneled to the 6 PDAs in Oakland and around the Bay Area. • Zoning – Mixes of uses generally permitted or conditionally permitted, with consideration to preserving and encouraging public safety and lively ground level/pedestrian experiences. • Micro Housing Units – A building featuring “micro housing units” has been approved in the Central Business District. Likely tenants of these units will be young professionals eager to be in the heart of the City. • Strong commitment to affordable housing – Oakland will set aside an amount equal to 25% of funds distributed to the City as a taxing entity under the Redevelopment dissolution laws into the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Additionally, the City is a recipient of Federal HOME housing entitlement funds. All affordable housing development funds are distributed in annual competitive “Notice of Funding Availability” competitions.

39 Of its peer cities in California (by population)—Anaheim, Fresno, Long Beach, Sacramento and Santa Ana—Oakland ranks third in most population density per square mile, after Santa Ana and Long Beach.

218 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

• Highly walkable/bikable city – Oakland has an overall Walk Score of 69 “Somewhat Walkable,” though 13 neighborhoods have scores in the range of 90-98. The City’s Bike Score is 57. • Excellent transit – AC Transit and BART provide Oakland residents and workers with a robust transit system, augmented by the Free B Shuttle on Broadway and the upcoming BART Oakland Airport Connector. City staff are exploring the feasibility of a streetcar on Broadway, resurrecting a popular mode of connection between transit, office, residential and retail centers. Oakland has an overall Transit Score of 54.

Table 3-63 Oakland’s 25-Year Development Horizon (Specific Plans)

Potential Lake Development Broadway Central Coliseum Merritt West Total over Valdez Estuary Area Station Oakland next 25 Area years

Residential Units 1,800 422 5,170 4,900 5,000 17,292

Retail square feet 1,114,000 268,071 470,000 404,000 385,000 2.2 million

Office square feet 695,000 443,950 84,000 1,229,000 - 2.4 million

High Intensity - - 7,400,000 - 3,460,000 10.8 million Campus/Office square feet

Hotel Rooms 180 - 875 - - 1,055

Industrial/Logistics - 374,857 285,000 - 855,000 1.5 million square feet Parks - 10 acres 25 acres - - 35 acres

Source: City of Oakland, Strategic Planning Division

EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES 219 CITY OF OAKLAND HOUSING ELEMENT 2015- 2023

2. Larger Employers in the Area

As of 2013, most of Oakland’s largest employers are government and education agencies, health care providers, and professional/business/service companies. The 2000 Census counted 174,743 employed residents in Oakland, about 92% of the civilian labor force of 190,666. EDD reported in 2012 that there were 180,311 jobs—a nearly 2% decrease in the number employed in Oakland since January 2002—as reported in the 2007-2014 Housing Element. There is a nearly 11.8% unemployment rate as of March 2013. The Census and EDD indicate that unemployment in Oakland is more than a function of job opportunities in the City in relation to the number of individuals in the labor force.

Table 3-64 Oakland’s Top 20 Employers Oakland Top 20 Employers in Oakland Business Type Employees 1. Kaiser Permanente 10,914 Health Care 2. Oakland Unified School District 7,664 Education 3. State of California 7,480 Government 4. Alameda County 6,218 Government 5. City of Oakland 5,082 Government 6. Alta Bates Summit Medical Center 3,623 Health Care 7. Children’s Hospital & Research Center 2,600 Health Care 8. Internal Revenue Service 2,500 Government 9. Southwest Airlines 2,100 Airline 10. Peralta Community College District 1,420 Education 11. FedEx 1,300 Logistics 12. Bay Area Rapid Transit 1,158 Public Transit 13. Caltrans 1,190 Government 14. Clorox Co. 1,004 Consumer Goods 15. Alameda Contra-Costa Transit District 1,000 Public Transit 16. AT&T 880 Telecommunications 17. Wells Fargo Bank 667 Financial Services 18. East Bay Municipal Utility District 680 Utilities 19. U.S. Postal Service 646 Government 20. Safeway 596 Retail Total 58,722

Source: City of Oakland Economic Development staff, August 2013.

Much information for this chapter was adapted from the East Bay Economic Outlook, May 2013, East Bay Economic Development Association.

220 EXISTING CONDITIONS/OPPORTUNITIES